Forum Post: Abolish the Income Tax
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 1:11 p.m. EST by marcxstar
(167)
from Los Angeles, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'd like to hear some voices weigh in on this issue.
I'm not sure if the "tax the rich" platform is a great way to proceed. There are a lot of moderately well-to-do people within the 99% who would be seriously adversely affected by an increase in their taxes (especially families).
Is there any support in the movement to abolish the income tax?
If you can find a way to support the government without it that does not place a disproportional amount of strain on the lower class, yes!
Uh, I suggest you leave certain parts intact.
Hell I'm telling everyone that the banks and other big corporations must be intact if we want any good to come out of this.
I would like to hear how else you would fund the government that would be fair to people in lower income brackets.
How was the government funded prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 which gave the federal government the power tax individuals' income?
They had to change the Constitution in order to allow the personal income tax to be constitutional.
If there is the will to do this, there is a way. However, I do not propose to have all the answers. That is why I'm asking for voices to weigh in on this issue.
Are you suggesting that the federal government should gain its entire revenue from contributions from the states? I'm not necessarily against that I'm just trying to clarify.
I would love to see a system in place that makes the federal government beholden to the communities of which it is comprised - rather than the opposite, which seems to exist today.
How would changing the form of taxation increase the government's accountability to the people? The two issues seem completely unrelated.
If it's accountability that you're after, then let's talk about ways to achieve more accountability, e.g. by regulating lobbying and campaign finance. This proposal of eliminating the income tax is both an impractical red herring and a distracting non sequitur.
It might not be impractical to those who would like to see the power and authority of our central government shrink.
I agree that regulating lobbying and campaign finance are first steps towards a more perfect union. But in the spirit of this people's movement, I also believe we should be looking at the big picture - while at the same time taking practical steps.
Is this people's movement not about returning power to the people? Is there no other way to finance our system of governance than to tax the labor of its individuals? The idea just seems so Middle Ages.
SisterRay, perhaps you don't believe a new vision for this country has any room in the discussion here?
I do believe a new vision for this country should be discussed here. The vision you were presenting, however, struck me as muddled.
Surely we agree that OWS is about returning power to the people. But since one of the main threats imposing upon the power and freedom of the people is the power concentrated in Wall Street, we need a strong federal government to hold Wall Street's power in check by regulating markets, overseeing compliance, and prosecuting white-collar crime. Shrinking the government at this stage would only mean increasing the power of Wall Street, as there would be no remaining institution for holding Wall Street accountable.
The problem is not government. The problem is government that is not responsive to the people. That's why lobbying and campaign finance rules are so important.
As for financing this government, I still don't see what your objection is. Surely you recognize that, in a capitalist society that entrusts the ownership of property to private individuals, if the government is to have any form of funding, it's going to come from individuals, right?
As for your description of the income tax as a tax on "the labor" of individuals, that seems misleading to me. It's not labor that's being taxed; it's income. Two people can put in equal amounts of labor of equal value and yet pay very different amounts in taxes if the income they receive for their labor varies. So I think your concern about the Medieval nature of taxing labor doesn't apply here. Taxing income seems like an appropriately capitalist way to finance the government. So I don't really see the objection here.
Regulation isn't very expensive.
War is. Global CIA operations are. NSA activity is.
Even with the coming cuts in defense though and the eventual end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal debt will continue to grow unless more revenue comes pouring into the Fed. Some of that will happen on its own as the economy picks up, but we also need to allow the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire if we're to pay for our necessary governmental services. I suppose some other form of taxation could be conceived, but I don't see the benefit of doing this.
In the short term I completely agree with you. We do need to address our debt first and foremost.
My intention of starting this thread was to engage the movement in a discussion of the possibilities. Perhaps you're right that it's too soon for even the discussion to be practical. The idea, judging by the response to this thread, seems to have no traction at this time.
All the power to you for the thought, my friend!
For now, let's organize around what we do have widespread agreement upon: (a) regulating lobbying and campaign finance to keep money out of politics and restore a representative government that can hold Wall Street accountable, and (b) addressing our long-term debt problem by cutting military expenses and letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.
Peace,
also a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley!
yes!