Think It Over, Part I

Back in the old days, writers who were putting forth their arguments in an attempt to influence their fellow citizens might have put a series of essays in the papers once a week or once a month (depending on the paper).  Although this would mean their position unfolded more slowly over time, I think there may have been an advantage in that it gave the readers some time to ponder and digest the author’s ideas, and to discuss them with one another.

Nowadays, it seems you better get to your point much more quickly before your readers decide their time is better spent on YouTube.  This is not meant as an insult to today’s readers at all – it’s just the nature of the beast (and, hey, I happen to love YouTube!).  I am sorry to just keep pushing ahead without giving people much time to think about the last post.  What I am sharing has come from weeks, months, and years of reading and thinking and observing.  If I had run across a blog like this eight or nine years ago without having thought much about the income tax, I’d have been pretty skeptical myself.  “What?  We don’t need the income tax?  What a bunch of hooey!”  I hope you will be able to take the time to revisit some of these posts, research things yourself, and spend time thinking – and thinking and thinking and thinking.

I’m going to quickly touch on a few ideas that could be essays in themselves.  I just want to throw them out there as sort of a short preface to the “eureka” moment that will be the heart of this post.  These ideas are sure to keep popping up in front of you like giant STOP signs after I’ve shared what I’ve been wanting to share for the last several days – popping up like giant, unnecessary STOP signs.  Though I will not spend much time on these points, I would encourage you to take the time to reflect on them whenever you can.  (I’ve touched on them before, so if you are familiar with them already you can skip ahead.)

First, it will never be correct to say that the income tax is the price we pay for living in society.  Society is the natural state of all human beings.  We are born into society as full-fledged members and spend our entire lives in it.  There can be no fee or debt of any kind to be paid for existing in our natural state.

Second, civilization (that is, the nice things society likes to put in place for itself to make life a little easier) does have costs.  Those costs are paid for by taxes.  There are many kinds of taxes besides the income tax that raise amazing amounts of revenue, and can be adjusted to raise even more amazing amounts.  Not only is the income tax not necessary for this, but I hope to show you that it should actually be avoided.

Finally, when Ben Franklin wrote in 1789 about nothing being certain “except death and taxes,” he was not thinking of the income tax as we have come to know it, because it didn’t exist in his day.  He would have had in mind the tax system that Seligman was describing in my last post – you know, the system that easily handled all of the financial needs of government (and then some) right up to and beyond his 1911 book.  So, to think of Franklin’s quote as applying to our income tax, and to think of the income tax as something that is inevitable and permanent, is completely baseless.  So don’t sweat it!

Rights and Responsibilities

People love talking about rights in this country, and we have a pretty good history for standing up for our rights.  In light of our Constitution  (with its Bill of Rights), and considering the language we celebrate in the Declaration of Independence, it is highly ironic and very unfortunate that people in this country have felt compelled to take the stands they’ve taken since our founding.  I am not unaware of the hypocrisy in this country when it comes to people being able to exercise their rights – it’s as if our government has been slowly coming to grips over the last couple of centuries with that whole “land of liberty” thing.  There have been fantastic strides to be sure, but we must never forget that we are a work in progress.  We have not arrived.

In almost any discussion of rights, the concept of “responsibility” will come up.  “Don’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”  As we know, recent events have reinvigorated the conversation on balancing free speech with the responsibilities that go with exercising that right.  It is a valuable – a critical – discussion.

If “How else will we pay for…?” has been the go-to response when I challenge the necessity of the income tax, then the most frequent response to my saying that we have a fundamental right to work (which shouldn’t have a tax connected to it) has been, “But rights come with responsibilities,” inferring that paying the income tax to help pay for government programs and services is the responsibility that comes with exercising our right to work.

I was sitting in my car the other day waiting for my oldest boy to finish up his cross country practice.  My youngest sat in the back seat listening to music on his iPod.  I scribbled something down in my appointment notebook that expounded on something I only touched upon about a week or so ago: “When a right is at the same time a responsibility in itself, it should magnify and elevate that right above others that, though still essential to protect, are exercised as a matter of choice.  I can identify three rights that are of this nature – the right of self-defense or self-preservation, parental rights, and the right to earn a living.”  You see, these particular rights also happen to be the most basic of human responsibilities, and should have no artificial obligations attached to them when exercised.

Think about our most basic trajectory as a part of human society: we’re born into a family, we mature, and we move out with the goal of supporting ourselves.  Is this path familiar to anyone else, or is it just me?  Society, for all its complexity, is organized primarily to support this simple cycle.

Meet Jerry.  He’s a sophomore in high school.  He loves sports, video games, enjoys math, and plays the trombone in jazz band.  We see him at a family reunion enjoying time with his cousins, aunts and uncles.  One of his aunts asks Jerry what he’s thinking of doing after high school.  Everyone is eager to hear what he has to say.

“Well, nothing,” he says with a smile.  “I figured you’d all be around to take care of me.”  He meets blank stares.  “Why is everyone looking at me like that?  I know I have every right to go out and earn a living, but I have other rights, too.  The cool thing about rights is that we’re not forced to exercise them, right?  I mean, I don’t have to vote.  I don’t have to voice dissenting opinions.  I don’t have to worship.”

It is my humble opinion that Jerry is missing something when it comes to exercising his right to go out and earn a living.  Jerry has a responsibility to society as a mature adult to support himself and his family (if he chooses to start one) so society doesn’t have to.  Jerry has a fundamental human right to earn a living, a right that is simultaneously a responsibility of the highest order.  So long as he is of sound mind and body, society has every reason to expect that Jerry will exercise his right to work and earn his living, but without the luxury of its being a choice like many of his other rights.  What’s the alternative realistically?  To become an unnecessary burden to society.  Jerry’s alternatives to earning a living amount to begging, borrowing, and stealing – in short, being a trombone player.

If working for a living really is something we can choose to do or not do as casually as choosing to exercise or not exercise our right to free speech or to vote, then what in God’s name have we been doing generation after generation after generation?  Why all the fuss?  Why education?  Why earn degrees?  Why seek job interviews?  Why the obsession with unemployment figures?  Why all the hand-wringing and stress over layoffs?  Why does everyone seem to have this yen for getting on the treadmill of work?  The fact is, as far as earning a living goes, it’s not the right that creates the responsibility, it’s the responsibility that creates the right.

If connecting a tax to our right of free speech is wrong, a right we exercise as a matter of choice, how much more does our right to earn a living deserve to be free of any possible impediment placed on it by the government?  Talk to anyone who’s in prison right now whose punishment has any connection with the income tax.  Does this tax not have the potential to impede or control a person’s fundamental right to work for their living?  Talk to anyone who has thousands or millions of dollars due in back taxes, a debt that accrued as a direct result of meeting one of their primary responsibilities as a human being.  Does this not place a burden on the exercise of their fundamental right to work?  For that matter, look at your own pay stub every month.  The consequences of not meeting the added obligation you see on that stub could mean the destruction of your being able to meet one of your foremost responsibilities – working the very job that earns you your living!

This leads to my conclusion, which I will have to write and post tomorrow.  I’ve been writing and parenting all day and it’s after midnight.  My body says sleep, and I have the right and responsibility of self-preservation.

J

Not Necessary, Plus A Little Glimpse of Day Seven

Some readers have told me that they get the whole “income tax isn’t necessary” thing.  I don’t know if those who have said this have always been aware of that fact, or if they had at first assumed it was necessary and then changed their mind upon a little reflection.  If you understood this point before I brought it up, I am not meaning to talk down to you or belabor the point.  I am writing from my perspective; my history.  Personally, I was completely apolitical for most of my life and prided myself in not really thinking about anything that concerned government or politics or economics or anything like that.  I was a musician and only had time for my art.  I figured that all the angry, shouting people would take care of all that other stuff.  So, it never occurred to me until a few years ago that the income tax was unnecessary, and I was rather shocked when I recognized it because I had always assumed the opposite.

It’s great to know that there are some out there who get this point (it’s actually quite encouraging), but my sense is that if one were to interview the “man on the street” and ask if the income tax is necessary, the overwhelming majority of those asked would answer, in a knee-jerk fashion, “Of course!”  And the next thing out of their mouth would be, “How else would we pay for [x, y, and z]?”  Their tone would probably suggest that you asked a dumb question.  I am writing to those people right now and trying to help them to see that their rhetorical “How else?” is not only a question that can be asked, but one that should be asked.

That was the overall point of last night’s post: there are states currently in the Union that have asked, “How else?”  And they’ve come up with answers – not necessarily the same answers in each of those nine states, but they show that the possibility exists of financing civilization without an income tax.  History shows that this has always been possible.

But before moving on, allow me to give you a small glimpse of Day Seven in my dealings with the IRS.

I was driving my youngest to school this morning and telling him that I’d be visiting the IRS office later to update them with my progress.  My boy asked, “But dad, after you file those missed returns, do you think you’ll be able to pay off all the debt before you die?”

“Well,” I said, “I think the income tax will die before I do.”

Isn’t it sad in this country that anyone should have to worry about debt incurred while earning their living?  (If you don’t see a problem with that now, then maybe after tomorrow’s post.)

Now, in terms of the necessity of an income tax at the federal level, I am going to quote from a book I have referenced before in these posts, Seligman’s The Income Tax, written in 1911 by an expert on the subject to encourage the adoption of this form of taxation here in America.  As one in support of the income tax, Seligman does not hide the fact that, as far as raising revenue to pay for “x, y, and z,” the income tax is not necessary.  This should come as a surprise to the average American who, for the most part, assumes that the income tax must have entered the scheme of taxation years and years ago because America just needed the money.  Seligman not only turns that assumption of ours on its head, but goes as far as to show that the federal taxing scheme that existed at the time was easily raising all the revenues needed by the federal government, and could even be tweaked without a lot of fuss to raise far more.  (FYI, most of Seligman’s argument for the income tax was based on “ability to pay,” or the idea that the wealthy would pay their “fair share.”  The last hundred years has made this argument laughable.  It only looks good on paper.  Based on many of the things he says in the book, it is my opinion that if he were still around, Seligman would be encouraging us to move on from the income tax.)  Here is the quote regarding the necessity of a federal (and even state) income tax in terms of raising money to pay for stuff (a long quote, but very valuable):

“In the first place, then, what are the revenue considerations attaching to the income tax?  So far as national taxation is concerned, it will scarcely be doubted that the income tax is not needed – at all events not for purposes of normal revenue.  For over half a century before the Civil War, all the necessities of the federal government were met by the tariff [a tax on foreign goods]; and since then the internal revenue, which was imposed to defray the war expenses, and retained to pay the interest and principal of the debt, has been continually reduced in the rate of tax and restricted in the choice of commodities subject to tax.  [Internal revenue refers to what he will soon mention as excise taxes – taxes on goods produced here, like liquor and tobacco.]  For several decades before the Civil War the tariff was primarily a tariff for revenue; since then it has become a tariff for protection, with incidental revenue.  This is not the place to consider the merits of protection versus so-called free trade; but it is reasonably certain that in the form either of a protective or a revenue tariff, the customs duties [another term for tariff], in addition to a moderate and restricted application of internal revenue taxes, will continue to suffice for ordinary purposes.  If in future it should become desirable somewhat to diminish the revenue from the tariff, it would be a simple matter to make good the deficiency by a slight increase in the rates of the existing excises, or by a small addition to the articles subject to excise [in other words, if we want to lower the tariff, we can make up the lost revenue by raising the current tax rates on liquor, tobacco, etc., or add the tax to more types of goods].  We do not often stop to think what an immense potential resource is afforded by the excise system.  In a country of the prodigious wealth of the United States it is no exaggeration to say that the entire expenses of the national government could be easily met by a system of internal excises which would even then be moderate in both rate and extent.  Instead of reckoning our internal revenue by the few hundreds of millions, we could, without great difficulty, reckon it almost by the thousands of millions [doesn’t sound like much today, but the dollar was worth a whole lot more than it is now.  Also, I know our government has grown considerably in the last century, but so have our population, economy, and wealth.  And, hopefully, our intelligence and creativity.].

“Even when the need for extraordinary revenue arose, it might in large measure be supplied by further extending the excises, and supplementing them by stamp and transportation taxes.  It is only in the rare exigency, when the resources of government are strained to the utmost in a foreign war, necessitating a resort to every conceivable sort of revenue, that a good argument might be framed for a national income tax simply as a revenue producer.  Such an exigency, however, arose during the Civil War, and might easily recur.  It is this argument which, as we have seen, is the convincing one as to the desirability of the passage of the sixteenth amendment; for when worst comes to worst, no government ought to be without the power of tapping every imaginable resource.  The question, however, that we are here considering is not whether the government should possess the constitutional power to impose an income tax, but whether a national income tax is really needed for ordinary revenue purposes [what our man on the street called x, y, and z – roads, schools, public health system, etc.].  Put in this way, the question must clearly be answered in the negative.  As a part of the regular tax system of the national government, the income tax is assuredly not needed for revenue purposes.

 

“If, however, it is not needed for national purposes, is it needed for state purposes?  It cannot be too often emphasized that what we are discussing here is not whether the income tax is a better or fairer tax than any other, but whether the existing tax system works so unsatisfactorily from the point of view of revenue that the income tax is needed as a supplement.  It is obvious that if we frame the question in this way the answer again is not doubtful.  Whatever may be the objections to the general property tax, it cannot be claimed that it has failed to secure revenue.  The questions of a possible inadequacy of state revenue have arisen not so much in those states which still levy the general property tax as in those which, like New York, have virtually abandoned the property tax for state purposes and are securing the necessary revenues in other ways.  Even in such states, however, an ample fund may be found in the corporation, the inheritance, the mortgage, the liquor license, and the stock exchange taxes.  Whatever force, accordingly, there may be in the demand for an income tax on the part of either the state or the nation, it is not to be found in the purely revenue argument.”

This was from the cutting edge of the debate over the income tax just two years before it became law, the same year the Sixteenth Amendment and the Federal Reserve were born (no connections whatsoever, I'm sure!).  And what we’ve just read was from the pro side of the debate!  Actually, you’ll be amazed when I share with you in more detail Seligman’s rousing summary of why the income tax was desirable, but in a future post.  (Remind me if I don’t get to it within a couple posts of this one.)

So, the goal of these last two posts was to help those of us who have always assumed the necessity of the income tax for revenue purposes to begin the process of retraining our minds to bend toward the truth of the matter.  Even if you’re fully or almost fully convinced by what I’ve shared, you have spent so much time believing in the necessity of this form of taxation that you will find your mind drifting back to that belief.  My hope is that tomorrow’s post will make “necessary” or “unnecessary” a moot point either way.  There is a much more important issue at stake, but understanding that the income tax is unnecessary should help us to see that issue more quickly and clearly.

So Excited, So Tired

So, I've gotten through Days Five and Six since the Big Stand Which Turned Out To Be Not So Big For The Sake Of The Children.  I've been running the kids around, trying to rebuild my tuning business before the deployment savings dry up, trying to prepare five tax returns to get that levy lifted as soon as possible, blogging just before bed each night, trying to remember to eat, and of course the dishes and laundry.  I go into the IRS tomorrow to show them the progress on three of the returns - progress meaning I've had time to add up the income for three of the five returns, and that's it.  When you're self-employed, it's not just a matter of finding that year's W-2.

That's the tired part of this post's title.  The excited part is what I'll be writing about in the next two posts - finishing up the "necessity" angle, and then one that will attempt to explain in the clearest of terms why it is more than reasonable to view the income tax with utter contempt in light of human rights and dignity.  In fact, on that score, I had something of a "eureka" moment in the car today which I am looking forward to sharing.  But I want to write when I'm fresh, which takes us back to the tired part.  I'm fried.  So, you'll please forgive me for going to bed early tonight (it's just past 10:00 p.m.).

Stay tuned!

The Progressive 9

One hundred years ago in this country, and for the hundred years before that in Europe, the income tax was considered progressive.  It was new and evolving; it was tried and dropped and tried again until it became a permanent fixture in most of the “modern” countries.  The goal was to make the working and poorer classes feel like the well-to-do were paying their “fair share.”  And to this day we still hold on to that dream, even though after a hundred years in this country it still has yet to come true.  You know what they say when you keep trying the same thing and expect different results.  This country must move forward where tax reform is concerned.  If anything, it will be therapeutic – it will loosen insanity’s grip.

Have you ever gone through the process of training your hair to go in a direction it isn’t used to?  Takes a while, doesn’t it?  You brush your hair in the new direction, but the cells and molecules are used to being bent or stretched in the old direction and are set, so the hair gradually moves back.  Through repetition, the cells are eventually set in the new direction.  Our minds can be the same way, and I’ll prove it to you.  I’m going to tell you something about the income tax tonight that is true.  It is something that many of you will have difficulty believing because you most likely think the exact opposite is true.  My hope is that a lot of you reading this are relatively new to giving this topic much thought – I actually hope that many of your minds are made up in the opposite direction of the truth, because it is your minds that need to learn to switch directions.  And if your interest in this topic grows and you want to forward any of my posts to others to bring them along, I hope this is the first post you share.  Here goes:

Whether at the state or federal level, the income tax is not necessary.

Now, that is the truth, and if you believe the opposite, I'm sure you still believe the opposite.  But as I show you the truth from a couple of different angles, even as you start to believe the truth, your mind will still try to go back to what it’s used to.  Speaking from my own experience, even after you have become fully convinced of the truth, you will still catch your mind drifting back in that direction, and you have to remind yourself of what you know to be true.

Thoughts of roads and schools are filling your head.  You still don’t believe me.

So, you remember I mentioned the conversation I was having with one of my friends this past Sunday night?  I want to share now what she said really struck her as I was venting over my International House of Pancakes Belgian waffle.  It is something I mentioned several posts ago, but I will give it a little more attention now.

There are currently nine states in the Union that do not levy an income tax on their citizens.  In 2010, I sent letters to the governors of those nine states and enquired as to why that is.  Is there a specific principle that keeps them from doing so?  Is it not allowed, or is it just a matter of its being unpopular?  I received five very cordial responses – some of the governors responded in person, and some referred the matter to other departments.  Here are some highlights.

A letter from Governor Perry’s Constituent Communication Division in Texas said: “Governor Perry does not support a state income tax…The state’s revenue comes largely from sales and property taxes.”

A special assistant for Alaska’s Department of Revenue wrote: “Alaska did impose an individual income tax for many years…By 1979, however, revenue from oil and gas production, property, and corporate income tax was nearly five times greater than revenues from the individual income tax.”  The state repealed the individual income tax effective January 1, 1980.  “Its repeal was simply a case of economics.”

Governor M. Michael Rounds of South Dakota said: “I do not support a state income tax because we already have a balanced and fair system of taxation in South Dakota…Most state government activities are funded primarily by the state sales and use tax.  Most local government activities are funded primarily by local property taxes.  Also, because the federal government already taxes income, I do not believe we should tax incomes a second time in South Dakota...

“States with state income taxes also have much more difficult times during recessions.  For example, in the current recession, the two revenue sources we have that are based on income generation – investment returns and the bank franchise tax – have plummeted.  If our entire state tax system were based primarily on an income tax, many harmful cuts would have to have been made in services that help people in need.  Therefore, reliance on a state income tax would not be good for South Dakotans.”

And Wyoming’s director of the Department of Revenue shared this: “The Legislature simply never saw fit to impose a personal or corporate income tax.

“In 1974, by a vote of the people the Constitution was amended by Article 15, Sec. 18, and it read as follows:

‘No tax shall be imposed upon income without allowing full credit against such tax liability for all sales, use, and ad valorem taxes paid in the taxable year by the same taxpayer to any taxing authority in Wyoming.’

“The message sent by the electorate was pretty obvious.  We don’t want income taxes imposed in Wyoming!...So the answer to your question is simply that there has never been any popular support for an income tax.  Because Wyoming is a mineral rich state, the tax revenue lost by not having an income tax is made up for by imposing severance and ad valorem taxes on minerals, primarily coal and oil & gas.”

Now, the point is not that states without the income tax are Utopias.  None of the letters suggested such a thing, nor have I ever believed that abolishing the income tax will lead to that.  But also note that none of the letters said, “Our wood plank schoolhouses are crumbling.  Raw sewage runs down our unpaved streets.  We can’t afford police.  A library?  Never heard of that.  Our naked, homeless citizens sit in a vast field, waiting to die.  If only we had an income tax.”  None of the “Progressive 9” (as I’m calling them) lack the bells and whistles of civilization enjoyed by their neighbors.

Nine of our states are proving every day that taxing the income of their citizens is unnecessary.  And what I truly admire about the people of Wyoming is that they fully recognize the fact that, though they don’t pay an income tax, they are still taxpayers!

I hope it’s beginning to sink in.

I need to sink into my bed, so tomorrow I will address this same topic at the federal level, and I think you will be very intrigued.

Day Four, or: I Bent Over At The IRS Office Today

I got to bed last night sometime after one in the morning, not long after checking my bank account and seeing that the first axe had fallen.  The levy went through – account balance: zero.  At three o’clock, my youngest son’s alarm went off on his wristwatch for some reason and woke me up.  I couldn’t go back to sleep – my mind and heart were racing.  I thought of a lot of posts to write, and imagined the networks getting wind of the day-by-day account of a man who stood up to The Man and was about to get his ass whipped. 

I saw myself doing interviews and maybe getting a reality TV show that would document my trek through tax court and straight to prison – I’m crying, the boys are crying.  Great season finale; show’s over; on to the next.  This nation could stand to watch another alligator getting caught in someone's backyard.  What channel's that on?

All the while I lay there, I could hear the deep, relaxed breathing of my youngest as he slept next to me on the futon in the living room.  My oldest was sleeping in my bed (I have a one-bedroom apartment).  Occasionally my youngest, still asleep, would snuggle up next to me and lay an arm across my shoulder.  Somewhere in his subconscious mind, he knew he had just snuggled up to dad.  The thought of that was the only thing that could make me smile, because aside from my pounding heart and reeling mind, all I could feel was a crushing weight inside.

My alarm went off at six and it was all I could do to crawl out of bed; I could barely walk – the crushing weight, the anxiety over the future.  I checked the stats on this blog site to see if the revolution had begun in the wee hours of the night.  The numbers said no.  Nothing about me in the USA Today headlines.  Judge Napolitano hadn’t left a comment promising financial support and a crack team of lawyers (including himself) to help fight and win the battle.  It was time to wake up the boys and pour the cereal.

They sat up at the counter and began eating breakfast.  I stood opposite them and started to make their lunches on the other side of the counter.  I could feel myself tottering on the inside; my resolve was slipping fast.  It wasn’t the money that the levy took, it was the reality of the levy itself which brought the reality of possible prison time into focus.  The boys have been through a divorce, they’ve endured a deployment, and now they must also suffer the price of my civil disobedience?

I stood there spreading the peanut butter and I broke.  Wiping a tear from my cheek I said, “Boys, there’s something I need to tell you about.”

“Are you crying?” asked my 12-year-old.

“Yeah.  What I have to tell you isn’t going to be easy.”  They braced themselves and I understood their initial fear.  “No one’s dying,” I assured them.

“Oh, good!” said my 14-year-old.  “That’s what I was getting ready for.”

“It’s about the IRS,” I said.  The boys have known the basics of my stance for some time, and I read their minds again.  “No, I’m not going to prison.”  My little one’s eyes had filled up, but at this assurance didn’t overflow.  Relief washed over their faces.

I told them about last Friday at the IRS office and how I took a stand, and the things that had been going through my mind for the last three days as we'd spent time together; about wanting to curl up into a ball and forget everything, and about our hugs being a countdown, and I told them I couldn’t put them through the trauma of my being taken away.  As strongly as I felt about this insidious form of taxation, as strongly as I felt that the issue at hand is basic human liberty (though so few see it right now), I just wasn’t ready to have them share in the penalties of an unjust system.  And I told them I was going to go back to that office today and play ball, to regroup and pursue my aims without making them vulnerable.  I’ll keep sitting at the back of the bus a while longer, and preserve a false peace based on false freedom.  It was exceedingly difficult to go back behind the line I had crossed three days ago, but I had to.  Others have stood up to what they felt was oppression and stayed the course, risking it all.  That doesn’t describe me; not now, not in this battle.  Whether I like it or not, I wasn’t ready.

The boys were great listeners, and my youngest smiled up at me and embraced me with tears in his eyes, saying, “This isn’t our last hug.”

Sitting across from the IRS agent later in the morning, I was quiet and somber.  I found it difficult to talk.  As he gave me the plan of action to “bring me into compliance” so they could lift the levy, I let out a few resigned “Okay”s.

As he handed me a pile of papers, I said quietly, “I just need to say that I think what I am doing is wrong.  This is all wrong.  As a human being I have every right to work for my living without having to jump through any government hoops.  I'm being forced to pay to exercise my right to work.”  He handed me a Kleenex because, well, I needed one.  I felt an overwhelming sense of injustice, of coercion.  It was all I could do to hold it together emotionally – I felt like a pathetic traitor to a cause I have been writing and agitating about for six years.  I hadn't lasted three days.

I went home with my papers in hand, and have felt emotionally drained all day, but relieved for my boys.  Many of you have offered encouraging words on the phone and on facebook, and they have all been appreciated.  I have decided to keep focusing on researching, writing, and educating; to opening more eyes.  I’d be happy to be the John Dickinson of tax reform.  I don't have to be James Otis or Patrick Henry.

Now that the spectacle is gone, many of you who were drawn here will wander off and miss the next few posts, and I am sorry for that.  I’m sorry I couldn’t continue providing the day-by-day drama of watching the income tax play itself out to its disgustingly harsh end.  I’m especially sorry if you’ve been a critic all along, or if you’re on the fence as to the real issue at stake.  The next few posts I think will be very enlightening and may contribute a great deal to the average American’s understanding of human rights and freedom.  That’s my hope, anyway.

Those of you who stick around, let’s keep talking and sharing and researching and learning and always keeping our sense of humor.  And let’s keep pursuing liberty and exposing its opposite wherever we detect it.

Day Four – regrouping; back to the drawing board.

It's Begun

Oh, my God, it's begun.  My bank account is zero.  I feel sick.  This is soul-crushing.  This isn't right.

This isn't right.

Day Three

Everything I have come to believe about the income tax, which has led to my recent decision and the potential for my life to be wrecked, is based primarily on human rights.

As human beings we are born with certain rights to freely do what humans naturally tend or need to do in the course of being human.  We have, of course, a right to live.  If that right is going to have any substance to it, we must toil to gather what can be considered the “essentials”: food, clothing, shelter.  These essential needs lead to what could arguably be considered our primary right as human beings, because without exercising this right, we endanger our own right to life.  This is our right to work, to toil, to labor, with the purpose of attaining those things that keep us going.  This right to work has also been recognized as being an integral part of the human’s “pursuit of happiness,” another natural right.  This is not to suggest that we necessarily derive happiness from our jobs – that isn’t a right, unfortunately.  It’s luck.  The point is, our right to work is recognized as something we do as human beings that goes beyond acquiring the barest necessities to keep us and our children just this side of death.  Working for a living is our primary means to ends that concern more than mere survival.

I’m a pretty simple man leading a pretty simple life.  Of course, I am unique from every other man, but all things considered, there are millions of me all over this country.  My pursuit of happiness at this stage of life primarily centers on raising my two boys to adulthood, and offering to society to young men who are responsible, fair-minded, respectful, and fun-loving (among other awesome attributes).  And I’m going to take a moment here to share some of the thoughts and feelings I have dealt with today while being around them.

 

Critics of my choice to engage in civil disobedience might say that I’m just trying to pull the old heartstrings to gain sympathy for my cause, and that is exactly what I’m doing.  With all due respect to some of my critics, I have to say that some of you come off as the coldest, most heartless people I’ve ever conversed with.  If heartstrings have any purpose, they remind us of our priorities.  I sometimes can’t help but wonder if some people think we are on this earth to play our part in some grand, corporate experiment.  We are here to do our part to make sure our government can raise revenue, can meet a budget, can launch a new department.  My God, if I watched some of you tearing up while reading an account of a mother being sold down the river and separated from her children, I’d question whether or not your tears were because you couldn’t be sure the buyer got the best possible deal.  Some of you think the income tax is purely an issue of government revenue, as if the buying and selling of slaves were a simple matter of commerce.  I’m here to tell you that the tax on your earned income concerns much more than government revenue.

As I wait now for the axe to fall because, as an American, I will never again pay a tax on my earned income, I can no longer take for granted any hug I share with my children as being just one in a long and continuous series.  It’s now a countdown.  How many hugs do we have left before I’m homeless or in prison?  Without knowing for sure (knock on wood), I can’t help but thinking that these are the kind of thoughts that go through the mind of a person who has just discovered they are terminally ill.  Everything that once rolled along in the normal routine of life is now part of a big countdown.  I can say unequivocally that my whole “pursuit of happiness” has been shot to hell, because the threats that have been hanging over my head since I first started working – the same threats that hang over yours – are potentially not far from being realized.  And where does this whole train of events begin?  When do the threats first begin to apply to me?  When I violate some person or their property?  No.  When I step out into to life and exercise my fundamental right to earn my living.

Some might say, “We all live under many threats.  It’s called the law.  Do this bad thing, and this will be the consequence.  You have been warned.”  And you are correct.

But allow me to take you back to what I said are the underpinnings of my stance: human rights.  The reality of human rights means that there are some laws that should never be written, that is, laws that contradict those rights or force people to jump through hoops in order to exercise them.

“Dad, I need a hug.”

“Now son, I’ve told you before.  There are certain things the government insists that I do in connection with my earning a living, and daddy didn’t do those things.  So, just a couple more years in this cell and daddy will be right out to give you that hug.”

Tell me the income tax doesn’t have the power to “retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control” the exercise of my fundamental right to work.  The words in quotes are words the Supreme Court used to support their unanimous ruling to strike down a tax that threatened…the working man?  No.  A federal bank.  That tax, because of its potential to do those things to the operations of a bank, was declared unconstitutional and void.  If a federal bank deserves such protection, what about the human beings that bank is supposed to serve?

In the end, if they bring the full weight of the law to bear on me, I may sue the government not only for violating my fundamental right to work, but for violating my rightful “pursuit of happiness.”  I don’t know, there’s just something about being around my children to love and care for them that makes me happy.  Call me crazy.

I think that’s about it for Day Three.  Tomorrow I promise I’ll pick it up from the conversation I had with my friend on Sunday night.  Stay tuned.  I intend to convert some of my critics (I’m doing this for you, too).  I hope that for some of you, that process is already beginning.