Libertarian Party: Don’t investigate the IRS, abolish it!

no_irsAs politicians in Washington D.C. scramble to take best advantage of the IRS debacle over targeting conservative and Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny, the Libertarian Party has upped the ante and is calling for the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service altogether.  Forget the investigation…just get rid of it.

“We must abolish the IRS and end any need for a regulatory agency that snoops into people’s private lives,” said Libertarian party Executive Director Carla Howell.  She added that our federal government needs far fewer resources to address their constitutionally-authorized obligations.  ”We don’t need an income tax, and we certainly don’t need the IRS,” Howell added.

If elimination were to be discussed, now would be the time.  Officials within the IRS refuse to admit what they know and when they knew it.  It is more clear than ever that corruption exists in all levels of government, and the IRS is quickly turning into a prime example of how rampant uncontrolled power and unaccountable government employees really are within our federal bureaucracy.  How much more evidence do Americans need before they stand up for their own rights and call for an end to one of the more historically corrupt entities of the federal government?

Once again, the Libertarian Party is the only party calling for an end to political corruption.  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have called for the elimination of the IRS, opting instead to maintain the abuse of so many American’s tax dollars and an insanely complex and punitive system of taxation.

“Individuals, businesses, and political organizations will all be safe from government interrogation and free to express their political views. It will dramatically increase the wealth of the private sector and inspire hundreds of billions of dollars in investment in small businesses and American jobs,” Howell said.

Milking the rich hits new high as average tax rate reaches 35%

Article Highlights

  • Rich paying largest share of federal taxes since 1979
  • Top 1% of earners pay over 35% of income to Washington
  • Bottom 20% pay nothing

A new study published by the Tax Policy Center in Washington D.C. finds that the rich are paying the largest share of federal income taxation in decades, which puts into question Obama’s claim that the rich need to pay their “fair share” to fix our government’s debt problem.

Earners in the  top 1% pay an average of 35% of their income to the federal government, the study found.  The bottom 20% pay nothing, and often, receive more in tax rebate checks than they paid into the system.  This amounts to a deficit in tax payments, and essentially, an additional yearly paycheck.  Historically, lower income earners are paying lower taxes than ever.

“My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes,” said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center.  Not only do higher income earners FEEL targeted by our tax system, they ARE targeted with high, punitive taxes – revenues that are then either wasted or lost within the incomprehensible layers of our government bureaucracy.

The Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that government revenues in 2013 will set new records.  Add in the fact that the large majority of those revenues will come from higher income earners, and political rhetoric that demands the rich “pay their fair share”, it does not take much of an imagination to realize just how devastating our tax system is to our nation’s future growth.  No wonder the wealthy maintain overseas bank accounts.  No wonder businesses outsource labor to other nations.  If those resources are kept within the borders of the United States, they are confiscated!

It seems the rich are paying their “fair share” after all.  When nearly 1 in 5 Americans pay nothing in taxes at the end of the year, it casts a serious shadow over the merits of progressive taxation and the class-based society that results from those tax tiers.

No need to apologize, Phil; taxes plague us all

phil-mickelson-298x300Professional PGA golfer Phil Michelson released a statement apologizing to his fans and those who felt insulted after the left-handed golfer said that due to extremely high state taxes in California, some “drastic changes” are looming in the near future, including a possible move out of the state.

“Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public,” Mickelson said in a statement. “I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend not to let it happen again.”

A couple weeks ago, Mickelson had broached the subject of politics during a Pebble Beach Pro-Am conference call.  After his final round last Sunday, Mickelson was asked to elaborate on what he meant by his comments.  ”There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state, and it doesn’t work for me right now,” he said. “So I’m going to have to make some changes.”

Is there anyone out there who would honestly feel insulted by another person expressing discontentment with having to pay more than 60% of his or her income to the state?  Our tax system is a disgraceful mess and  incomprehensible by the majority of Americans.  As a taxpayer, I would be more insulted if nobody found fault with our clearly lopsided progressive system of taxation.

The public was both supportive and critical of Mickelson’s comments.  Some mocked the golfer, who pulled in close to $45 million last  year, for complaining about taxes while making so much money.  But Mickelson has no reason to apologize for “insulting” anybody.  While talk of politics is probably not the best course of action for any public sports figure, milking the rich out of their money has no place in a free society and it is perfectly natural for people to protect their earnings.  If Mickelson does end up moving, it once again proves a point that we’ve made plenty throughout SmallGovTimes.com – that if you milk the rich, you lose the rich.  And what state doesn’t want their tax revenue, or in the case of business owners, their jobs?

Rich Perry has already invited Mickelson to move to Texas, which has no state income taxes.  Many golfers live in Texas or Florida because neither state collects income tax.  Tiger Woods admitted to moving to Florida for precisely that reason back in the middle 90s.  Mickelson, a native of San Diego, lived in Scottsdale, AZ for several years before moving back to California.  California residents are the highest taxed in the nation.

A nation of taxation: How to socially engineer a population

When you think about taxation in the United States of America, you typically will think about the government taking money from its citizens to fund expenses that the government incurs. Nowadays, we argue a lot about how much we are taxes and in what ways government taxes us — but have you considered the question of why we are taxed?

Even Dictionary.com’s definition of a ‘tax’ adheres to the common denotation of fund raising:

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

But the truth is that not all taxes are levied on the citizenry for the purposes of raising funds to pay for its expenses. In fact, many taxes are designed to, in some fashion, modify the collective behavior of the citizens.

These are typically ‘excise’ taxes, and their cost is hidden from the end consumer at the time of purchase. A common excise tax we routinely pay is in gasoline; the federal tax currently is 18.4 cents per gallon, and states will attach their own taxes on top of it (i.e.: New York’s is 51.3 cents per gallon). You don’t know it’s there, but next time you think gas is expensive at the pump — just remember that up to 70 cents of that is in taxes alone, and your gas could be $2.30 a gallon instead of $3+. But, there’s a more sinister question at hand: why is gas taxed? You already pay income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. as previously discussed in the first part of this taxation series. Do we really need to raise more money?

The answer is, unsurprisingly, no. In fact, in 2010 the federal fuel excise tax amounted to $38 billion dollars — hardly a drop in the bucket given our trillion dollar budget. The original intent of this tax was to have people who drive more pay more for road maintenance and those who didn’t drive as much/drive lighter vehicles paid less. This tax is to modify behavior by encouraging you through financial penalty to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and/or drive less. By raising the cost of driving, the government is incentivizing you to modify your behavior by artificially inflating the true cost.

It doesn’t just stop at gasoline, either. There’s an alcohol and tobacco excise tax that you pay that’s hidden into the cost of those products – upwards of a dollar for a single pack of cigarettes at the federal level and usually more at the state. This is to discourage people from using alcohol and tobacco for ‘the greater good’ of society. This is an example of when the government attempts to play parent and deprive individuals of their cognitive liberty. The government is altering the conditions of common situations because it believes it is smarter than you and knows how you should live your life.

Taxes, by in large, aren’t always about the amount the money, but government sure will use the concept of money against you. Just as you are penalized for the actions the government doesn’t want you to take, it subsidizes you through tax breaks and credits in order to encourage you to do something.  The income tax code encourages people to get married by taxing you less, it encourages you to buy a house (tax free mortgage interest), it gives you credits for going to school (college tax breaks), and it even gives credits for buying hybrid cars that would otherwise be an unwise economic choice. These taxation policies, while seemingly innocuous, are designed to strip away decision-making capabilities and substitute the government’s judgement for your own — and they do it using other people’s money, to boot.

Anything you do with taxes, other than to raise funds, is a corruption of taxation and a gross abuse of freedom. Without your financial liberty, your freedom of speech is greatly hampered, and by making it so the people are dependent on these credits and to avoid penalties, you will behave the way the government wants you to behave in order to maintain your standard of living. These actions taken against the single individual might not seem like much, but when considered at the aggregate scale of the entire population of the  United States, they make tremendous impacts on our society.

How can you truly claim to be free when so many Americans are unaware of how the everyday choices they make (spending hard earned money) are being manipulated by the tax code? And it doesn’t just stop with you, the citizen; the government also subsidizes industries (farming) and penalizes others (tobacco) so you are never truly sure of anything.

cigarettes.  Cost of a bad habit.

If you needed further proof that our taxes have gone completely insane, you need look no further than the soft drink tax/bans. The government taxes you to raise money to subsidize corn farming dramatically, which leads to the cheap production of high-fructose corn syrup as a low-cost replacement for sugar in soft drinks — now, the government is attempting to enact taxes and bans (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/new-york-soda-ban/index.html) on the very drinks it is already taxing you on to produce cheaply.  That is right, the government is taxing you in order to tax you again.  All this to ‘improve health’ and ‘deter soft drink habits’.

What more can be said about a tax code designed to modify the behavior of the population? This corruption of taxation has occurred, and worsened, with both Democrats and Republicans in full control of the congress and presidency.

There is no ‘lesser’ evil.

More Republicans willing to accept tax increases to avoid cliff

In a sign that Republicans feel the pressure from the White House and Congress to pass “something” that resembles fiscal reform, more Republicans in D.C. are showing signs that they are willing to accept tax increases on the wealthy to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff that looms in the near future.

This includes Tea Partiers who at one point slammed Congress for not doing enough to curb spending and provide tax relief for the majority of taxpayers.  At the heart of the matter is whether or not the Bush-era tax cuts will get extended to all Americans, or just those who make under $250,000 a year.

“I am not going to take anything off the table if we can resolve some of our biggest issues as a country,” said Michigan representative Justin Amash – an attorney by trade – who enjoyed big-time Tea Party support.  Or Sean Duffy from Wisconsin, who said that he believes in a “balanced” approach to the fiscal problem and generally accepting of the language put in place by Democratic leadership to raise revenue via taxation.

Even Florida Congressman Allen West, who recently lost his re-election bid (but still holds his seat until January) said he generally supports tax increases on wealthier Americans.  He believes the threshold for “wealthy” needs to be set at $2m, rather than the $250k set forth by the president.

Many of these Republicans seem unaware that public revenues often decrease as taxes on the wealthy are increased.  Facts and basic economic principles be damned, though, as our elected representatives decide on which Americans to screw over in order to fund the next wave of government spending.

Many support the closure of loopholes in the system, and that’s good.  But far too much attention is being paid on the easier solution of raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of taxes – which, as we’ve stated many times before throughout SmallGovTimes.com, encourages the exploitation of loopholes, offshore bank accounts and in some cases a straight exodus of revenue-generating businesses from our nation.

Republican Steve King said of the matter, ”Conservatives might be able to figure how they can go home and rationalize a vote that included a revenue increase and or a tax rate increase.”  There always seems to be a way, and that is the problem.