It's Time To Push A Societal RESET Button

Why does wealth have to equal power and influence?  Why can’t wealth only mean the power to buy more things, and not the power to buy influence?  Why is influence for sale?  Why is it in the marketplace?

If I were to become wealthy overnight, would a sense of entitlement to be an influential person be born in me at the same time, or would it grow within me slowly?  Would it have to make an appearance?  Would it be possible for me to be content merely with my new power to buy more stuff, and scoff at the idea that I should now be one of the decision makers?  Or would that sense of entitlement inevitably overwhelm and overtake me?

I can only think of one reason, as a wealthy person, to desire being a decision maker, to desire being a power broker: to preserve, protect, and increase my own wealth.  One thing I know that wealth wouldn't give me is a newfound wisdom for handling the affairs of men.  It would not give me a higher level of respect or regard for my fellow human beings than I already possess.  It would in no way better qualify me to make decisions for society beyond whatever qualifications I may have had when I was not wealthy.   So why should some misguided "right to power" accompany the circumstance of wealth?  Indeed, in Twain’s story, the Pauper was far more qualified for leadership than the Prince.  We like to imagine that if we were suddenly wealthy, we would kick back and take it easy for the rest of our lives.  And I believe we would if we had no fear of falling back into the middle or lower classes.

But I think it’s that fear of falling that drives the rich to crave influence.  They can’t relax if they see any potential leaks in their hot-air balloon.  Mustn’t lose altitude!  Must shore up the system so that, if anything, I’m gaining altitude!  You have to admit that over the centuries, they’ve gotten pretty good at staying afloat.

But what if their fear could be taken away?  We all do reckless things when we’re afraid, right, like trample over people to escape a burning room?  But where’s the fire?  Why must the rich feel like they need to trample on everyone else to stay afloat?  Is it a law of the universe that our increased prosperity means their downfall?  Must they crash so we can soar?  Is there not room in the atmosphere for all of us to rise without knocking someone else out of the way?

Have the wealthy merely stratified society so that they don’t have to share the sidewalk with the poor and risk being mugged, so they can drive down their streets without the fear of being carjacked?  So they can at least relax a little bit?  What if the poor could rise to a level above desperation, to where they would feel no need and see no sense in molesting their wealthier brother?  People tend to do what makes sense to them, to do what they feel they need to do.  Alleviate desperation and frustration, and what is the result?  Peace, prosperity, security, freedom.

But where fear and anger and resentment reign at the extremes of income levels, the best the wealthy can come up with – because we allow their wealth to purchase influence – is to stratify, divide, subjugate.  The wealthy do this to protect themselves from the angry poor, and the poor are angry because this is the wealthy man’s idea of how society should be run – and it all works to protect their wealth.  So the fears of the few lead to policies that produce anger in the many, which feeds the fear that then creates new policies for protection from that anger, which creates more anger, which feeds the fear.  And round and round we go.  And those who may be enlightened enough to break the cycle are not allowed to be influential because of, again, the fears of the wealthy.

Maybe we who are the many should grant an amnesty to the few.  Tell the wealthy that, even if we know it to not be the case, we will grant that whatever wealth you currently possess is yours legitimately.  Whatever you have as of today, you have.  You don’t have to hide from justice, you don’t have to fear our confiscating it through the courts, you don’t have to fear mob action to “collect.”  We won’t even sneer at you and make snide remarks anymore.  You’re just rich, and that is all.  You can buy more stuff than other people.  We're okay with that.  In fact, when was the last time your piano was tuned?  Here's my card.

Going forward, we are going to rewrite parts of the rule book to create the most level playing field we can possibly put together.  Oh, no thanks, wealthy, formerly influential brother, your input won’t be needed, is not wanted.  We got this.  As we’ve said, whatever wealth you possess is yours no-questions-asked, but the only protection allowed for it now is for you to pursue, through our court system, anyone who criminally violates your property – like, tries to take it from you by criminal means.  Any protections currently allowed in the law to your wealth that are oppressive to the rights of others, grant you unfair advantage over others, or are otherwise unethical, will be stricken.  You, brothers and sisters of wealth, now stand on the same ground as we do – we are equals.  We share the same fears and aspirations as fellow human beings.  You’re still unbelievably rich and will no longer be criticized for it, but you will now have to learn to handle legitimate competition.  You may keep as much wealth as you can hold onto, and make more if you are able, your only rightful protections being your abilities, the police, and the courts – and the protection of our wealth is exactly the same.  Some of you will lose altitude, and some of us will gain altitude, but the playing field will be leveled to everyone’s equal advantage.  The goal here is not to bring the rich down, or to take what is theirs and give it away to someone else, but only to allow the poor to more easily work themselves to a place where they can breathe freely and leave behind the pathetic existence of living in dire straits, leave behind a life of having to skip meals and wonder if the electricity will stay on this week, leave behind frustration, anger, and resentment toward their wealthier, scheming, controlling brothers.

We could grant an amnesty, rewrite the rule books, and hit a colossal, societal RESET button.  I think it would actually work, and I also think that human nature would quickly lead many to try to game this newly constructed system to their advantage.  So I think that, going forward from this happy place, the police and those who work in the courts would need to be some of the most generously compensated public servants, because they would need to do a stellar job enforcing the new rules without being tempted to place their influence on the market; and all legislators, state and federal, would have term limits imposed – two or three terms, and then we save you from yourselves by sending you back to private life (we would include mayors and sheriffs in this, too).  Influence and wealth would no longer go hand-in-hand, though we’re not naïve enough to think that attempts would not be made.  Some of the best decision makers could rise from the ranks of our former paupers.  It would be a rebirth of freedom, security, and prosperity.  How long it would last would depend on our vigilance, on how seriously we value liberty and equality.

But I fear this will never happen, because we who are the many, who have it within our power to make this a reality (a reality that doesn't have to be a terrifying nightmare for the rich), are mostly lazy, tolerant, and apathetic, like a bunch of cows just standing around chewing our cud.  How about this for a simpler RESET?  If you’re not willing to stand up and do something positive and constructive, then we take away your right to complain. 

This planet – such a fun place to be.

Don’t “Write Me Off” Too Soon, Society

(See what I did there with the title?  Like a tax "write off"?  We mustn't lose our sense of humor, folks.  I spent time with some great friends today and at least got that back.)

Any law that is in the books in this country is presumed to be the will of the People – it is what Society wants.  It would follow then that lawbreakers are those who are going against Society.

Anyone looking at my situation could very quickly come to the conclusion that I am breaking the law via civil disobedience where the income tax is concerned, and, therefore, I am obviously going against the will of Society because the law says I have to pay it.

But, Society, before you judge me, you may want to examine me a little more closely, and then perhaps reevaluate what your true will is.

Let me plant this in your head first: It’s 1850, and it is now a federal crime to assist fugitive slaves.  It is a federal crime to not hand them over to the authorities if you have the opportunity.  Let’s say you decide to help a known fugitive slave get from point A to point B on their journey to freedom.  Technically, you are a criminal.  But in helping a fellow human being escape bondage, did you really commit a crime?  Are your actions truly worthy of punishment?

Let’s jump back to today.  You ask, “Who’s this uppity piano tuner in Illinois thinking he’s above the law?  Why, he’s nothing but a whining freeloader!  Take him away!”  Well, let me try to give you a better picture.

I’m a single dad.  I have two boys to whom I am very devoted.  We are a tight-knit family.  We love music and video games and humor and each other.  They also have a devoted mother and have roughly equal time with both of their parents.

I tune pianos for a living; I have no employees.  Apart from the income tax, I pay taxes every day.  Most of the money I earn pays for food and gasoline.  The gasoline is for running my car so I can get to my tunings so I can get paid and buy more food.  We like to eat every day (it's become a habit).  I spend every dollar I make, and I pay taxes every time I spend those dollars.  As a renter, I pay a part of my landlord’s property taxes, and there are probably some other business-related taxes of his I help pay.  If the income tax disappeared tonight, we would all still be “taxpayers,” make no mistake.

You might be thinking right now, “Ha, a piano tuner who doesn’t want to pay his income taxes, and he doesn’t even provide jobs for other people.  No employees; just makes money for himself.  This guy isn’t contributing much to Society.  He needs to pay up.”

Well, it’s true that my business provides a job only for me.  So, maybe I really don’t make much of a contribution, right?  I only make pianos functional so that professional pianists can perform and their agents and promoters have something to do; so that piano teachers have an instrument their students can use; so that piano students have something to practice on at home.  If pianos couldn’t be tuned and the keys kept from malfunctioning, then people wouldn’t buy them from dealers, and dealers would stop ordering them from manufacturers.  Piano performers (with their agents and promoters), piano teachers, dealers, and manufacturers would have to look for other work.  This would affect businesses that market pianos and do their advertising.  The industries that supply raw materials for pianos would see their orders diminished.  And what industries are those?  Well, there's the lumber industry, and steel, copper, iron, brass, wool, leather, cloth, vinyl, plastic, paint, glue, graphite, ink, finishers, movers, etc.

 

So, yeah, piano tuners aren't really plugged into anything.  It’s just me, and I’m just a leech who sucks up resources and gives nothing in return.

If you do anything for 47 years, you can safely be said to be an expert.  At 47-years-old, I certainly qualify as an expert in two very important areas: on being human, and on being a part of Society.  As a human being and as a member of Society, if anyone approached me and said, “I work hard all year round to provide for myself and my children.  My labor is my only resource for providing for us.  In the normal course of the year, even during this recession, I make enough to make ends meet, maybe a little above living month-to-month, but not much more.  I have no financial cushion to rest on if times get really tough.  I’ve decided that the income tax is not much different than having to pay for breathing as far as my rights are concerned, so I’ve stopped paying it, yet I still contribute to government coffers every day with no problem.  What do you think?  Should I have all my money taken away so they can collect what they say I owe?  Should I face time in prison for not filing returns?  Should my family be broken up and traumatized?  Or should I be left alone to continue doing what I’ve been doing – supporting myself and my family so we’re not a burden to anyone else?”

As an expert human being and member of Society, I couldn’t find it within myself to tell such a person that they deserve the punishments prescribed in the law, even though the law, being "in the books," presumes that that is my will.  I couldn’t identify those punishments and their rather dire consequences as being aligned with my will in any way.  I would come to the conclusion that this person isn’t “going against Society” at all, and if they deserve anything, it would be the encouragement to keep on keepin’ on; it would be a pat on the back.  I’d tell them they are doing exactly what Society expects of them as a responsible, adult human being, and they should be left alone to continue doing it.  After all, government has the ways and means of raising its necessary revenues without in any way interfering with that person’s going out and earning their living, so why should it?  What’s the point?

In the same way, if it was 1852 and someone told me they just helped a slave escape to freedom, I’d reflect on the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, remind myself that I am talking to a felon, and buy him a drink.

I would submit to you that our laws concerning the income tax are out of step with the true will of Society, despite the fact that they’re “in the books.”  I could poll everyone in my building on this (fellow members of Society), and I know that all of them would prefer me out working and supporting my boys rather than being punished according to the law.  And if I (being as legitimate a member of Society as you are) wouldn’t condemn and punish you for not paying the income tax, knowing that you contribute other taxes into the coffers every day, why would you punish me?  I can’t think of a person I’ve ever met who would have come up with and tried to promote a tax system so harsh and controlling, threatening and manipulative.  Not one.  So, whose will does the law, with its very harsh and debilitating punishments, really represent?

How It Feels To Have Crossed The Line, At Least For Me

So, since crossing that line this morning at the IRS office, I find that my mind has been racing all day.  I have no peace, I have no sense of security; I am racked by doubt and fear.  The road ahead suddenly looks dark and bleak when your ability to pay rent and bills and child support is suddenly taken away.

I wasn’t supposed to have my kids overnight tonight, but things worked out so that I did, and I’m so glad, because being alone tonight would have been torture.  Yet, being with them has been its own torture.  I can’t look at them enough, but it breaks my heart to look at them and think of how their worlds might be rocked in the near future.  I can’t hug them enough; this night passes away too quickly.  I don’t want it to end knowing that if I stay my course, I have ended a relatively happy and tranquil period in their lives.

My mind keeps imagining a slave who has decided to run away.  What must have been his thoughts as he said goodnight to his wife and kids the night of his departure, not able to tell them of his plan lest the master punish them for being complicit?  “I don’t have to do this.  I could stay and leave everything the way it is.  My wife and children depend on me.”  And then his mind would drift to the threats he lives under constantly – the threat of whippings, the threat of being shot, the threat of being hanged, the constant threat of a thousand humiliations big and small.  It’s the threats, the threats, the threats!  The threats themselves, even if not carried out, constantly stare at him and keep him “in his place.”  The threats, even if not carried out, are evil – their mere existence is evil.  They shouldn’t be there.  The only way to get out from beneath them is to leave.

The threats shouldn’t be there.  What an insane species we are to tolerate the evil and oppression that plagues us, that has plagued our kind since the remote past.  One day, a plantation owner on our east coast said out loud, “You know what we need around here?  Slave labor!”  And the guy standing next to him said, “Right!” instead of looking the man squarely in the eye and saying, “Shut your mouth, you freak!”  We’re so tolerant of bad ideas, ideas that thrive among us even when we know better, ideas that end up torturing and oppressing generations to come.

Having all the money you’ve worked for and live on taken from your bank account; facing prison time for not filing returns; being left to wonder where you’ll live now and how you’ll get by, how you’ll provide for your children with an empty gas tank and empty wallet.  These things should never have been connected in any way with going out to earn your living.  There should be not even the remotest connection to these pathetic, heartless possibilities.  Threats should not exist in connection to earning a living.

Going out and toiling for my living is all I have.  It’s all I have.  I wasn’t born into wealth; I arrived without the benefit of a silver spoon.  I’m as much a part of society as anyone else, and I don’t know anyone in society who thinks I should be so cruelly punished and kept from continuing to go out and make an honest living.  My not paying a tax on my earned income doesn’t burden society – my not working and forcing society to support me instead burdens society.  I want to continue working (a right I was born with, so I hear), but the law says I have to jump through hoops in order to do that, or else.  The threats, the threats, the threats!

So the voices compete for center stage in my mind: “I don’t have to do this!  I could put up the white flag of compliance and the levy will be lifted (the beatings will stop).”  “That’s what they want – it’s what they count on!”  “Compliance is so easy, defiance so risky.”

 

I feel hollow inside.  I feel drained after standing up for myself for only one day!  In my own country, the land of liberty, my right to pursue my own happiness is something I can do if I pay the government.  The idea that it’s an inalienable right somehow sounds Utopian, mythological, utterly false.  America is merely a parody of a “free country” and has been since the beginning, and we are insanely okay with it.  For most of us, singing the National Anthem and saying the Pledge once in a while gets us close enough.

The fact that I’ve actually traded security for freedom where earning a living is concerned shocks me, and makes my head spin.  We should enjoy both security and freedom abundantly as free human beings when it comes to working to sustain ourselves.

The threats – we have to see that they are there and they are real, and we need to learn to despise them.

I go to bed.  My pursuit of happiness seems so far away now, so unreal, so out of reach, so not mine.  I am sad and scared, and so disappointed in this American Experiment knowing that not only will I be punished for standing up for simple human dignity, but my children will feel the punishment as well.

I Stood Up For What I Believe At the IRS Office Today

I know I'll face a lot of criticism (and possibly hardship) for what I did this morning.  I visited my local IRS office and asked them to remove the levy on my bank account.  I had a very friendly conversation with Mrs. W and explained my position - we even shared a couple of laughs, and she was actually pretty empathetic - I consciously kept it light and friendly, despite the potential consequences of my position.  But she couldn't lift the levy without my either paying the "balance due" or creating a payment plan subject to my filing for the years I've not filed, and I told her (in a friendly, matter-of-fact way) I can no longer comply with this oppressive, unjust system.  So, the levy stands.  The system will do what it was designed to do - attempt to oppress, degrade, and intimidate.  I'm not going to try to stop it anymore. I'm not angry, and I'm not afraid (well, maybe a little anxious, mostly for my boys).

If lack of criticism and hardship were prerequisites for making changes in this world, then nothing would change, would it?  I take my life (and my children's, and yours) too seriously to play this game anymore.  All I want to do is be free to go out and make my living, unhindered.  But our ingenious system will punish me and treat me like a criminal if I insist on the "unhindered" part.

Please, friends, don't lecture me on government budgets and "fairness" and roads and schools and, "Well, this is just our system, and everyone has to do it."  You might as well tell the slave that he can avoid beatings or a hanging if he'll just stay on the plantation and do his work.  Is successfully walking the line to avoid beatings the same as freedom?  Or you might as well explain to the kid who broke a Jim Crow law and got his butt kicked that everything will get back to normal if he'll just drink out of that drinking fountain, or sit there on the bus or in the restaurant.  Is compliance that avoids punishment the same as freedom?

You see, that is what I'm standing up for - freedom.  No one who's out working for a living should have to face having their bank account wiped out, or should have to face prison time in connection with earning their bread.  No one should be incurring debt as they work to support themselves.  It's a crass, mean-spirited, manipulative system invented by - surprise! - the wealthy and powerful.  And they count on our tolerance and compliance to keep it going.  Well, my tolerance and compliance has come to an end, because I no longer consider myself a means to their ends.  I was not put on this earth to pay the income tax.  That is not my purpose.  Like I said, I take my life too seriously anymore to play along.

And what about my kids?  What about Martin Luther King's kids?  The fact of their existence didn't make Dr. King sit down and shut up - if anything, it probably compelled him to push harder for change.  And what of anyone who had kids and took a risk to stand up against what they perceived as oppression?  I take this stand for my kids, too.  I don't want them growing up and working under the income tax.  And my compliance, history proves, will change nothing.

I feel free, but a little afraid, because I have crossed a line into unknown territory.  I've never seriously had to face the possibility of homelessness before.  People, it's our freedom or that damn tax system.  What's more important to you?

The IRS Has An Opinion On My Stance, Too

So, what do you do if you check your mail one day (as I did today) and find that the IRS is going to levy your bank account to collect $1,600 they say is due from 2004, and $14.5K from 2006?  Well, most of you would about have a heart attack and panic, thinking that the sky is about to fall on your head.  You’d call the 800 number and set up a payment plan lickity-split and fall in line.  You would make sure to preserve your place as a dutiful cog in the wheels of the Man.

Me?  I’ve already come to terms with our ill-conceived income tax system and, though the sky may be falling on my head where this levy is concerned, it is not of my doing – it’s our dumb system at work.  So I say, let it fall.  Let the system do what it was made to do.  Why short-circuit the thing?  The system was designed to take away my ability to pay my rent come October; to take away my ability to support myself and my children; to take away my ability to put anymore gas in my car so I can drive to my tunings and earn my living.  The system was made to back me into a corner, grab me by the balls, and shake me down come hell or high water.  The only way out is to earn money at or below the poverty line, or to make so much that my high-priced lawyers can navigate me through the tax code to legally avoid the obligation.

I’ve written letters to the IRS, to State and Federal representatives, even to Mr. Obama, the man I voted into office.  I’ve voiced my concerns over the government essentially charging me money to exercise my fundamental human right to work for a living – but to no avail.  So, I’m giving myself the only logical option left to me: just say no.  I will not purposely live in poverty, I cannot afford the fancy lawyers, and I refuse to go “underground” and live a life of evasion – that’s what sewer rats do.  I will live out in the open, in the light.  I will stand up straight and say to the government: I owe you nothing for doing what a man must do.

It is precisely because this tax system has such formidable power built into it, such control over a supposedly free person’s life, that I oppose it.  Don’t talk to me of government budgets and “fairness” until you can look me in the eye and tell me I wasn’t born with the right to labor to sustain myself and my kids – and have me believe you.  You might say, “Of course you have that right, but rights come with responsibilities,” and from there you would launch into my responsibility to pay taxes and help pay for roads and schools.

But you’d be skipping a very important and overlooked fact.  My right to work for my sustenance is at the same time its own responsibility, and is, in fact, the chief responsibility of every man and woman.  It will never be right to impose a tax on the exercise of a person’s chief right and responsibility as a human being.  You might as well charge me for breathing.  I work to support myself and the children I bring into this world so society doesn’t have to support us.  That is fulfilling my responsibility to society.  Roads and schools are important, but they are secondary to that chief responsibility and can be paid for without threatening it, without holding it over a barrel.

You know, slavery wouldn’t have been a bad thing if it didn’t enslave people.  Look at the income tax system and realize that you are only as free as your willingness to comply with it.  Without your compliance, your freedom is immediately endangered.  We are literally forced to purchase our freedom every April 15^th.  Comply, and you are free for another year.  I can no longer comply, so, if it comes to it, I will no longer be free.  That’s our dumb system.  It wasn’t my idea.

So, Society, you be the judge.  Where do I belong?  Out there working an honest living and supporting myself and my children (and in the process paying taxes as I provide clothes, food, and shelter), or on the streets spending visitation with my kids at McDonald’s because dad was evicted from his apartment for failure to pay rent?  Should I be imprisoned for not filing income tax returns and live off of tax money while in jail, or should I be free, working for my living and contributing to the kitty myself every time I buy a gallon of gas or buy my kids some food?  It’s a dumb system.

Our dilemma (it isn’t just mine – you’re over the same barrel, too) is just like that of anyone being extorted.  Pay your protection money every week or month and live “free” just like everyone else, or maybe wake up one morning to find your business mysteriously burnt to the ground.  It’s so easy to just comply.

Civilization Will Not Disappear When The Income Tax Does

In 1911, two years before the passage of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution, Edwin Seligman published an exhaustive history of the income tax ostensibly as a way to sell the idea to the American public.  Apparently, it must have helped, because the Amendment was subsequently adopted.

Having come to oppose this form of taxation within the last several years based on the principle that, no matter how you slice it, it is a tax on our fundamental human right to work in order to sustain our lives, I thought it would be a good idea to read a comprehensive work such as Seligman’s that was written at the time our ancestors were debating the very subject.  I admit that in the back of my mind, I thought, “But what if this 700-page tome ends up converting me back to a position in support of the tax?  What would I say to all my friends to whom I’ve been preaching against it?  So many words to eat!”  These thoughts (along with the book’s length) really did cause me some hesitation, but I figured it wasn’t about who is right, but about what is right.  I’m not afraid to be wrong – it’s happened before.  (The book, for those itching to jump in, is entitled: The Income Tax: A Study of the History, Theory, and Practice of Income Taxation at Home and Abroad, by Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman.)

So, I spent many weeks reading the book and annotating as I went along.  If I had to sum up over 700 pages of a well-documented, thorough treatment of the subject, it would be as follows: even though neither the nation nor its individual states need the income tax for revenue purposes, we should adopt it as a means of bringing equality and fairness to taxation, so that the wealthy are made to pay their fair share.  That’s it!  And I had to laugh when I finished the last page and closed the book.  My position on the tax is not only unchanged, but stronger than it was before.

As I share a few quotes from the book as well as some of my annotations on it, I would like my readers to come away with this one thought: the income tax is not necessary.  I will not here try to convince you that it is wrong in principle and, for that reason alone, should be abolished.  All I want is for you to come away from this post fully convinced in your mind that it is not a necessary form of taxation.

I begin with the state income tax.  First, it should be noted that today there are nine states in the Union that levy no tax on earned income.  If we were to guess which states these were, judging by whether or not these nine states had roads and schools and firefighters and sewers, could we immediately point to the states that we know have none of the benefits of modern civilization and say, “Ha!  These must be the states without a state income tax!”?  Are there any states in the Union where you must, upon crossing the border in your car, pull over and jump into a horse-drawn carriage to travel old Indian trails?  Okay, you get the point: there are no states in our nation that lack any of the bells and whistles of civilization, yet nine of them manage this without taxing the income of their residents – proof that an income tax is not necessary.

Let’s go back in history for further proof.  At various points, the colonies imposed what was called a “faculty tax” on their residents.  Think of it not as an income tax technically, but as a crude form of it.  In any case,

every colony that imposed it in some form or fashion from about the mid-17^th century up to the end of the 18^th century existed prior to imposing it, and continued to exist after abolishing it.

“…the faculty tax had disappeared in Rhode Island by the middle of the [18^th] century,” but not Rhode Island.

“Before the close of the [18^th] century, however, the [faculty] tax had disappeared [from New Hampshire],” yet New Hampshire failed to fall off the map.

“In New York, as we know, there never was any faculty tax,” yet there was New York!

Maryland, 1777: a faculty tax is imposed.  In 1780, it’s abolished.  Virginia introduced a faculty tax in 1786.  “In 1790 the whole system was abolished.”  You’ve all heard of Maryland and Virginia, right?  I once got a really bad sunburn in Virginia.

Pennsylvania’s faculty tax had “lingered along” but was “virtually a dead letter.  Now in 1840 it was partly resuscitated.”  It became an early form of a true income tax, was tweaked for a few decades, and “was allowed to disappear in 1871, when the law was repealed.”  Most of my family was born in the state of Pennsylvania – yes, it still exists!

Maryland had another go and started taxing incomes in 1841.  About nine years later, “We are told in the proceedings of the state constitutional convention that the law was repealed ‘because of its inquisitorial character, its impertinent scrutiny into the affairs of private life, and of other difficulties which it had to encounter, and the frauds and impositions it caused, and above all, its utter failure to produce a sufficient sum.’”  Yet, once again, Maryland remained.

Florida initiated an income tax in 1845.  Ten years later “the whole system was abolished.”  I know Florida still exists – I was born there!

South Carolina’s faculty tax became an income tax in 1861.  “But when the new [state] constitution was adopted in 1868, the dissatisfaction was such that the taxation of incomes was completely abandoned.”  Yet, South Carolina has remained in the path of many hurricanes since.

Alabama was taxing incomes in the 1860’s, and “the tax came to an end in 1884.”  Georgia began taxing incomes during the Civil War.  “As soon as the war was over, protests poured in upon the legislature, and the tax was soon dropped.”

 

“Missouri introduced a partial income tax in 1861…With the close of the war, however, Missouri’s experiment came to an end.”

Texas tried it from 1860 to 1871; Louisiana from 1864 to 1899.  West Virginia introduced an income tax law in 1863, “but it seems never to have been enforced.  Finally, in Kentucky, a law of 1867 imposed a partial income tax, confining it to the income from United States bonds, and for a few years yielded considerable revenue.  In 1872, however, the law was declared unconstitutional.”  But Seligman doesn’t say upon what grounds.

As of the year Seligman’s book was published (1911), only five states in the Union were levying an income tax with varied success.  A special tax commission in Maine considered the possibility in 1889, but concluded: “[An income tax] has been tried in several states, but has proved unsatisfactory in all, and it is a potent argument against this form of taxation that in the efforts that have been made in most states of the Union during the past ten years to find new sources of revenue, there has been so little disposition to resort to income taxes.”

New York considered it a few years later and reached this conclusion: “But in view of the objections made to the income tax…and a feeling on the part of the public that such a tax is inquisitorial and contrary to the spirit of republican institutions, such a tax at this time seems to be quite inadmissible, whatever be its merits.”

And check out what California had to say!  “In 1906 the tax commission of California took up the matter.  It so happened that the constitution of California specifically permitted income taxes.  The commission, however, reported strongly against any attempt to introduce an income tax: ‘The Commission believes that it would not be wise to take advantage of this section [of the constitution]…Our people have so much respect for labor that what is won by honest toil is regarded as sacred and not to be reduced by direct taxation.’”  I love you, California!  (My youngest sister was born there, you know!)

In 1907, Seligman was a member of a general committee in New York which argued against introducing a state income tax there.  He himself was the author of a supplemental report presented to the tax commission stating why the income tax (at the state level) was a bad idea (actually, Seligman believed that an income tax was only viable as a federal tax, but more on that later).  One very interesting part of his report states: “While the aim of the [income tax] law would be to press less hardly upon the moderate and fairly well-to-do class, the practical result would be, in our opinion, to impose the burden upon these very sections of the community, and to exempt the wealthier classes who can afford to employ the most astute legal talent to aid them in evading the law.  The tax would seek to secure equality; it would result in crass inequality.”  One hundred years later, we can look back and tell Seligman that he was absolutely right – at both the state and federal level, because this is precisely the result.  It is odd that he wouldn’t think the same shenanigans would occur with a federal income tax.

Well, this post is long enough.  I hope you are convinced by now, based on history, that an income tax is not necessary (at least at the state level – we’ll look at the federal level next time).  Colonies, which would later become states, imposed and then abolished faculty and income taxes, and not one of those colonies/states sank into the sea when those taxes were repealed.  And nine states currently do not levy them.  This may be a radical thought for some of you being that income taxation is all you have ever known.  How easy it is to assume that what is has always been, and therefore must always be.  Not so!  You may now say with full confidence and accuracy: a state income tax is not necessary to the existence of any state.  If I can convince you of just that, I'll be happy.

God Bless Faithless, Hypocritical America

This post is meant to challenge the pants off both sides of the political spectrum, because it examines something the left and right have in common: a deep concern for Israel.

Now, you folks on the left – I’m talking to the liberal Democrats who have a keen interest in the well-being of Israel, whether that interest be political, religious, ethnic, or all of the above – there is at least one thing you love about your brothers and sisters on the conservative, religious right, and that is their undying reverence for “God’s chosen people,” the nation of Israel.  Yes, you might hate them for over a dozen other reasons, but you love them for this.  And you find it very fortunate that many from America’s religious right like to combine love of God with love of country – they’re religious and they’re patriotic!  Isn’t it great that so many who serve in our nation’s military also have a soft spot in their hearts for Israel?   Many on the religious right believe that if you love your country, you’ll serve in the military.  And many of them believe that if you love the God of the Bible, you will keep a place in your heart for Israel because of what it says in the book of Revelation (not to mention what God says about Israel in the “Old Testament”).  So, lefty friends, hate them for other reasons (and God knows you do), but isn’t it convenient that you have a large population of gun-toting, God-fearing, Israel-revering soldiers and Marines ready to march into battle on Israel’s behalf?  Works out pretty well, doesn’t it?  Sort of gives new meaning to, “Onward, Christian Soldier!”

And now I address conservative Christian America – yeah, you Bible Belt types who vote Republican, idolize Ronald Reagan, and like to think you were born with a gun in your hand.  Well, hallelujah, brother!  I’ve got another revelation for you!  There’s a lot of sabre rattling going on in Washington, D.C., regarding Iran.  Word on the street is that they’re planning on nuking Israel (yes, that nation God talks about in the Bible), and maybe even us!  They’re wily and out of control and Muslim!  We’re in for it.

Oh, but wait!  America is the world’s superpower, and America is a staunch ally of Israel.  So, good news for America: Iran poses about as much of a threat to the American continent as Greenland.  And good news for Israel: we’re ready to send our sons and daughters over to fight for you because…because…we’re your staunch ally because…because…because you are the chosen people of God!  Hallelujah!

Oh, but wait, my earnest right-wing soldiers and Marines, so ready to do battle with the enemies of God.  I think it would be wise to examine those beloved Scriptures a little more closely before you gear up to give Iran a black eye.  If your motive is to go into battle to protect “God’s chosen people,” you will do well to first consider that the God of the Bible loves nothing more than to display His power, and to display it in such a way so that man cannot take credit for His mighty deeds.

Consider that nowhere in the Bible do you read of God threatening the enemies of Israel with the military might of the United States of America.  Is it not true that the God of Israel can smite the enemies of His children with the jawbone of a donkey?  Why would this same God, who never changes, now need American tanks, fighter jets, and battleships?  Would this offer of assistance not offend the Almighty?  Does He not laugh at your meager strength as compared to His?

Remember that your God hates pride above all.  Your God hates reliance upon man instead of reliance upon His mighty arm.  He is a jealous God.  Can’t you see that offering military assistance to God’s chosen people undermines the Maker of heaven and earth, who needs no human intervention to protect His people?  Don’t you see that faith in your country’s military, when used on behalf of Israel, is a lack of faith in the very God you profess to worship?  True faith in the God of Israel, when Israel is threatened, would say, “Let go and let God.”  Some of you have that very saying hanging on the wall in your homes.  Do you simply recall that saying to relieve anxiety when you’re looking for a parking space downtown, or might you also exercise that type of faith when considering whether or not your country should go to war?  I think if America had more faith in the God of the universe than in her battleships, she wouldn’t be the war-mongering nation she's become.

So much to think about on both sides.  Those on the right need to examine their faith to see if it is genuine, and need to ask whether their faith in God is being manipulated by others.  Those on the left (many of whom, by the way, are proudly secular) should ask themselves whether or not they are using the religious right (with their unique religious philosophy regarding Israel) as their own political pawns, as political slaves, which would go against the democratic principles they so ardently profess.  Are we a country of faithless right-wingers and hypocritical left-wingers?

I think we are, and I think it is shameful.

“It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.”  -the God of Israel