In income tax is implicit the idea that the federal government owns your earnings. Roles of government are: 1. Enforcing Contracts, 2. Defence, 3. Protection of Individual Rights; that's it. You know it's funny, when I argue with social interventionists whatever the moniker they might give themselves and they insist on government intervention in our lives I always take it to the next step. You start asking them where it stops, should the government put you on a diet if you are overweight? Should it tell youwhat to eat? What to drink? How about government dress code? Then they start folding. They realise there is no end game in sight. If government can tell you not to smoke a joint where does it stop? The argument that there will be poor people or people who don't do too well is fallacious; in the USA we have a War on Drugs, a War on Poverty and a War on Illiteracy and none of these has cured these ills. When people can keep their earnings they prosper and do well and people are content instead of forking over a quarter or even half of what they earn to the government to be used for either well intentioned but ill begotten purposes or entirely nefarious purposes. When there is an income tax (which is necessary for the gigantic bureaucracy we have going), it is the government telling you it owns you and the fruits of your labour are not yours to spend as you will; it does not matter whether it is 3% or 60% because the minute a government starts stealing from your labour the amount stolen is arbitrary and the principle remains the same: it owns you. Free markets and individual freedom are all about the individual making choices for himself.
The government is entitled to a portion of each citizen's earnings to maintain the infrastructure of the nation.
There is such a thing as a national interest. We are not merely an amalgam of individuals doing our own thing. That sort of freedom is available to us but we must fund the national interest.
I have yet to see a tax system implemented in this country where the federal government owns or takes all of a citizen's earnings. So I disagree with you on that.
So you get your opposition to fold under the old slippery slope argument of "where does the regulation stop?!."
Here's where it stops: We are the government. It is a government by and for The People. Being the reasonable people that we are, our consitution is predicated on principles from the Elilghtenment, we the people set the boundaries for where government intervention begins and ends.
I think that's a pretty good idea.
The Government can be misused if we let it. Just look at the Bush administration which privatizes as many government functions to enrich cronies and remove accountability while these privatized functions are done at extreme costs and in a half-assed manner.
Taxation without representation can be characterized as stealing.
This country has taxation with representation. We are the government. We decide the level of federal taxation as a nation. We can take it (gov) back from special interest.
Too bad the republican propaganda machine makes that damn near impossibile.
The democrats contribute to that equation too but not as brazenly or completely as the republican party.
In principle, I am with you. I first believe that we need a strong federal government to break the corporate hold on our representative form of government. We can't do that without a strong federal government.
After corporations are handled, then we have various federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated and devolve power to the states to leave the decisions for certain things in local hands.
