scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

A discussion of Obamaland tax rates

Posted by Trevor in under other on Aug 13th, 2008 | View Comments |

Soon to be President Barack Obama has a plan that involves how much of your money the government will take away, by force if necessary. Some people won’t pay anything. Some people will pay a lot. The plan, like those that have come before it – the only constant being that tax rates have grown vastly since World War I – is based not on common sense or fairness, but on economic voodoo.

Senator Barack Obama declared recently that he wants to “reform our tax code so that it rewards work and not just wealth.” We think that is a great goal if it means a simple tax system with low marginal tax rates. Unfortunately, a close inspection of Obama’s proposals reveals something disquieting: he would raise marginal tax rates for many middle-income taxpayers, a bad move for anyone seeking to promote economic growth.

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a “phase-out.” Economists have a different name for it—we call it a tax. Reducing a person’s tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income.

The keys to our current tax system are manifold. Although touted as voluntary, our tax system is based on force. If you don’t pay whatever the government determines you should pay then force comes into play. First you are threatened. Then your wages are garnished. If you continue to try and avoid paying whatever “fair share” the bureaucrats say you owe the rest of the country, you’ll end up in jail, with all your real property forfeit to the Fed. If you ask questions about the laws that entitle the government to seize however much of your money it wants, you’ll soon find yourself surrounded by armed goons.

Just ask Edward and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire. You’ll have to visit them in jail to do so. The couple is currently sentenced to 63 months in federal pound me in the ass prison for refusing to participate in the “voluntary” tax system because the government wouldn’t answer their tax questions honestly.

The law they were accused of violating was the personal income tax law and the Browns asked to see the law before they handed over any more money. Their quest for proof of the existence of such a law began over 10 years ago when they first found out the income tax was being misapplied to include taxing all Americans labor. Once the browns realized they, along with the rest of us, were being defrauded of our hard worked labor by the irs they decided to make a stand and challenge the government, not only for themselves, but for the rest of the people in this country, so that they also will be made aware of the terrible injustice being carried out on each of us every day.

You may agree or disagree with the Browns methodology. That’s your right. However, I would strongly encourage you to take a few moments to understand how the upcoming Obama presidency is likely to affect your pocketbook.

While Obama has publicly embraced a tax rate of 40 percent for couples earning over $350,000, his tax policies would result in a staggering 45 percent effective marginal rate in the $110,000 to $120,000 income range for this family. That is 11 percentage points higher than under current law.

Here’s a graph:

Bear in mind that if you ask to see the current tax law, no one will be able to show you anything that a) is Constitutional or b) vaguely resembles a coherent, interpretable English document. The current federal tax code is purposely obtuse and also completely against the highest law of the land, the United States Constitution. At least, that is my opinion.

One question I’ve always asked those who feel it is OK for the federal government to skim money off of every paycheck I’ve ever earned is: if God himself only requires 10% why is it OK for people I’ve never met to take more than that? No one has ever given me an answer that made any sense.

Fighting the tax man may be difficult and dangerous, but it is also a moral imperative. I have the audacity of hope on my side.

Similar Posts:

Print This Post |

Trevor

Show me a link to publication 17, Yoshi. I'll be the judge of that document, please and thank you.

Yoshi99

I've been preparing tax returns for the past 10 years. The tax code isn't complex at all with respect to individual taxpayers. I mean, it gets a little complicated with corporations and people trying to dodge paying taxes, but other than that, it's pretty straightforward. Nearly every common scenario is covered in Publication 17, and very few people with kids making under $100,000 pay 10% worth of taxes. Publication 17 is written in basic, plain English. If you can't understand Publication 17, the problem isn't with the IRS, it's with YOU.

Trevor

That's completely wrong Mike. If the Supreme makes a decision that clearly violates the Constitution, which is written in fairly easy to understand English, then I don't intend to follow that decision, or pretend to respect it. I'll hear arguments on the merits of the decision, but I'm not the servant of the Court, I'm the servant of the principles outlined in the document.

Mike

Mike, The Supreme Court works on my behalf, not the other way around. That is how things are supposed to work. The system is broken and will fail without a major overhaul.
Actually, the SCOTUS works to determine controversies under the Constitution according to that document. I think you'll find that it's not supposed to be done according to a popular vote; you may not like the decisions it has made, but if you claim to honour the document, you must accept them as correct by definition.

Trevor

Mike, The Supreme Court works on my behalf, not the other way around. That is how things are supposed to work. The system is broken and will fail without a major overhaul.

Look at how many arguments have already cropped up over the Heller decision. Rule of law is only a concept that is as effective as the social memes prevalent at the time. As long as SCOTUS continues to disrespect the American people Rule of Law will be degraded.

Mike

A few things...

The Constitution has always given the power to tax incomes, and the 16th Amendment simply removed the apportionment requirement.

The IRS is not required to show you the tax law.

The "voluntary" refers to the method in which the information is collected; in other words, rather than the tax collectors showing up and assessing you directly, you volunteer the information.

While your opinion may be that Federal income tax is un-Constitutional, the SCOTUS says otherwise; as a Constitutionalist, you ought to recognise that, morally correct or not, the SCOTUS has the last word on this.

TheNightFly

The Browns imprisonment is a terrible injustice. The very idea should outrage America worse than 9/11 did. If I were running for President, I would be supporting the Fair tax. I would also be supporting the unconditional release of all Americans imprisoned for tax evasion, and they should compensated generously for the time they've spent in prison. I would also support changing the laws so that no American can ever be imprisoned for tax evasion again.

Trevor

Harry Reid makes the tax laws, so why should he worry about paying taxes. I'm sure he more than makes up for those in lobbyist cash.

T F Stern

Sen. Harry Reid said that income tax is a voluntary act; of course he also acknowledged that if you don't volunteer to pay that the full weight of the law would come after you. Voluntary must mean something else to Sen. Harry Reid and the rest of the thieves there in Washington.