Why the Only Proper Tax is a Single Tax on Property

[bobevenson]

The American Energy Party (AEP) position is that the only proper tax is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. That means no income tax, no sales tax, and none of the other myriad taxes that all levels of government have been able to conjure up. Furthermore, taxable property must only be within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority. The following article by economist Walter Williams should give pause not only to every American, but to people throughout the world.

Americans Deserve the IRS
By Economist Walter Williams

Individually, Americans do not deserve to be subservient to such a fear-mongering, intimidating and powerful agency as the Internal Revenue Service; but collectively, we do. Let's look at it.

Since the 1791 ratification of our Constitution, until well into the 1920s, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product never exceeded 5 percent, except during war. Today federal spending is 25 percent of our GDP. State and local government spending is about 15 percent of the GDP. That means government spends more than 40 cents of each dollar we earn. If we add government's regulatory burden, which is simply a disguised form of taxation, the government take is more than 50 percent of what we produce.

In order to squeeze out of us half of what we produce, a government tax collection agency must be ruthless and able to put the fear of God into its citizens. The IRS has mastered that task. Congress has given it powers that would be deemed criminal if used by others. For example, the Constitution's Fifth Amendment protects Americans against self-incrimination and being forced to bear witness against oneself. That's precisely what one does when he is compelled to sign his income tax form. However, a Fifth Amendment argument can't be used as a defense in a court of law. The IRS will counter that you voluntarily provided the information on your tax return.

If you're in debt to Bank of America, Wells Fargo or any other private creditor, in order for it to garnish your wages as a means of collecting debt, it must first get a court order. By contrast, the IRS can garnish your wages without having to get a court order first. If your employer doesn't obey the IRS and send it a portion of your wages, he will be held accountable for what you owe. At the minimum, some IRS collection procedures violate one of the basic tenets of the rule of law -- namely, the law of the land applies equally to individuals (and other private entities) and the government (and its officials and agents).

Our Founding Fathers feared the emergence of an agency such as the IRS and its potential for abuse. That's why they gave us Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which reads: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." A capitation is a tax placed directly on an individual. That's what an income tax is. The founders feared the abuse and the government power inherent in a direct tax. In Section 8 of Article 1, they added, "But all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." These protections the founders gave us were undone by the Progressive era's 16th Amendment, which reads, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

If federal spending were only 5 percent of our GDP ($750 billion) -- instead of 25 percent ($3.8 trillion) -- there would be no need for today's oppressive and complicated tax system. You might ask, "How could we be a great nation without all the government spending?" When our Constitution was ratified in 1791, we were a weak and poor nation. One hundred forty years later, with federal spending a mere pittance of what it is today, we became the world's richest and most powerful nation. No small part of this miracle was limited and unintrusive government.

The bottom line is that members of Congress need such a ruthless tax collection agency as the IRS because of the charge we Americans have given them. We want what the IRS does -- namely, to take the earnings of one American so Congress can create a benefit for some other American. Don't get angry with IRS agents. They are just following orders.

[henry quirk]

I presume my old, well-used, Olympia SM 9 is considered a taxable property, yes?

Why should I pay a tax on sumthin' I wholly own and only I use?

And: why is a property tax the "only proper tax"?

[bobevenson]

I presume my old, well-used, Olympia SM 9 is considered a taxable property, yes?

Why should I pay a tax on sumthin' I wholly own and only I use?

And: why is a property tax the "only proper tax"?

The only proper function of government is social integration and the protection of people and property. The ultimate source of revenue to maintain this function is the property being protected, which means all property with intrinsic market value.

[henry quirk]

Under your scheme, Bob, what's my recourse if those who are supposed to protect me and my property fall down on the job leaving me to fend for myself?

Do I still 'owe' payment for protection not (adequately) provided?

Can I get my money back for poor (or, nonexistent) service?


Also: someone tries to steal my Olympia...I stop them without the aid of police/government...do I still have to pay for a service I didn't use?

[bobevenson]

Under your scheme, Bob, what's my recourse if those who are supposed to protect me and my property fall down on the job leaving me to fend for myself?

Do I still 'owe' payment for protection not (adequately) provided?

Can I get my money back for poor (or, nonexistent) service?


Also: someone tries to steal my Olympia...I stop them without the aid of police/government...do I still have to pay for a service I didn't use?

You are paying an insurance premium for personal and property protection. If the government is not providing good value, throw the bums out at the next election.

[henry quirk]

Not much of a recourse, Bob, making your tax scheme -- to me -- no better than the current state of affairs.

I prefer to pay only for what 'I' use.

Roads, for example...I drive a lot (way more than the average bear)...sensibly, I ought to be charged significantly more for 'my' use and abuse of the road than someone who lives, works, and plays within 25 miles of home.

Back to the subject: the police should send 'me' the bill for services rendered to 'me' (and, if I refuse to pay, take me to court).

If I never call the cops, never use their service, then I can't see how I owe them jack squat.

As for the idea this is all about "an insurance premium for personal and property protection": if I can't decline the service (and, therefore, choose not to pay) then payment is not a premium but simply theft.

[bobevenson]

I'm sorry, but there are general functions of government that need to be paid for, and the only proper and ultimate source of payment is property, not just real estate, but everything with intrinsic market value.

[henry quirk]

You believe those functions are "social integration and the protection of people and property"; I believe those functions are tending to public infrastructure (mostly a local or municipal concern), minimal and common sense regulation (mostly contract enforcement and oversight), and repulsion of the invader.

Only the last is a strictly national issue.

More fundamentally, though: you believe in 'governance' while I prefer 'public service'.

As for 'how' to pay for those functions: with the exception of repulsing invader, the few, minimal, functions of governance (or public service) can be paid for locally by way of the simple one-to-one transaction (that is, 'I' pay for the services I use only).

How to fund a standing militia is sumthin' I'll have to consider (though what I envision is significantly smaller, leaner, and more targeted than what stands now).

[bobevenson]

Unfortunately, you're getting off the subject. Regardless of what the government should or shouldn't do, there's going to be a tax bill, and the question is, where should the money come from?

[henry quirk]

"you're getting off the subject."

No, I'm not, because I address this, "where should the money come from?", with this, 'the few, minimal, functions of governance (or public service) can be paid for locally by way of the simple one-to-one transaction (that is, 'I' pay for the services I use only).'

You might say there's little to no chance of my idea seeing implementation, so, there's no point in talkin' about it.

If so, then there's also no point in talkin' about the American Energy Party scheme 'cause it has about the same chance of being implemented as my notion(s).

[bobevenson]

"you're getting off the subject."

No, I'm not, because I address this, "where should the money come from?", with this, 'the few, minimal, functions of governance (or public service) can be paid for locally by way of the simple one-to-one transaction (that is, 'I' pay for the services I use only).'

You might say there's little to no chance of my idea seeing implementation, so, there's no point in talkin' about it.

If so, then there's also no point in talkin' about the American Energy Party scheme 'cause it has about the same chance of being implemented as my notion(s).

Sorry, your "Alice in Wonderland" notions are ridiculous.

[henry quirk]

HA!

Again: no more so than your AEP.

But: as you like, Bob.

[bobevenson]

HA!

Again: no more so than your AEP.

But: as you like, Bob.

You just don't want to pay taxes of any kind, and are not interested in any tax proposal.

[henry quirk]

"You just don't want to pay taxes of any kind, and are not interested in any tax proposal."

Yep, pretty much.

I want to, and 'do', pay for services and products I want, need, and use everyday; I don't pay for services and products I don't want, need, or use.

Can't *see a good reason why such transactional processes can't be extended into, or adopted by, 'government'.









*certainly: YOU, Bob, haven't offered any good reason why 'taxation' is superior to paying only for what one uses.

[bobevenson]

Let's say somebody kills your relative in cold blood. Who pays for the investigation, arrest, trial, conviction and imprisonment of the perpetrator?