Gross Minus Net Equals Zero: Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

[R. A. Hettinga]

<http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3745>



Gross Minus Net Equals Zero: Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment
 by Michael Marriott (June 20, 2004)

 Article website address:  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3745

Summary:  Let us together repeal the sixteenth amendment to the
Constitution by the year 2013.

 [CAPMAG.COM]

 When I worked in Saudi Arabia as a technical consultant in the 1990s, my
coworkers and I were astounded upon receiving our first paycheck: we
actually were paid the full amount we had earned. Gross pay minus net pay
equaled zero. Never before or since in my lifetime has such a thing
happened. Since every working person in the United States deserves such a
delightful, fulfilling experience I would like to submit the following
proposition.

Let us together repeal the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution by the
year 2013. This infamous income tax amendment was passed in 1909 by
"progressive" Republicans as the best method to collect government revenue,
ensure "fairness" and get around the pesky Supreme Court. The latter had
the gall to rule in the late 19th century that such levies on income were
unconstitutional. Undaunted, the politicians of the era decided that an
income tax amendment was necessary. It required four years for the states
to ratify the amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1913.

Hence 2013 presents a nice target date for the amendment's repeal (rather
then a year of mournful reminders, 2013 could become a jubilee year that
strikes a majestic blow in favor of individual rights). Further, we all can
participate in the nine year debate to determine if our country is to be
truly free. Repeal of the 16th amendment would be a real and symbolic
reaffirmation that our government is truly limited; no other single act we
could possibly perform would so effectively reinforce the idea that America
is a country dedicated to individual happiness.

Consider some of the travesties the 16th amendment has spawned in the last
one hundred years. The power to tax has become the ultimate politician
plaything. The so-called "progressive" nature of the tax code allows
permutations uncountable as politicos raise, then lower, individual tax
rates. The tax code can tailored to benefit specific special interest
groups to garner bloc votes. As seventy five percent of government revenue
is made possible by this insidious amendment, great sums become available
to wage war, pay premium prices for toilet seats and allow certain folks to
sit and do nothing for a living.

 Upon approval of the 16th amendment, a new agency was sired to "help"
reticent citizens "volunteer" personal, private income data, the Internal
Revenue Service. And such a "service" it provides! If the IRS suspects tax
cheating it can: garnish wages, freeze bank accounts, seize assets and in
general make life hell for its "customers". Over the amendment's existence,
citizens of the United States have been harassed, hounded, and in some
cases, driven to suicide for failing to pay their "fair" share to the
government. Never mind due process, innocent until proven guilty or other
such tripe. The 16th amendment horribly contradicts other parts of the
Constitution, such as depriving citizens of property without a trial. These
things make one yearn for the good old days of taxation without
representation under Great Britain.

The diminution of individual rights is sordid enough but by no means the
only effect of the 16th amendment. The income tax has served to raise costs
on the very people made poorer by paying the taxes in the first place. The
government is able to finance great agencies that cause prices to increase
artificially: milk subsidies raise the price of dairy products as do a
whole host of similar subsidies in other industries; medical care costs
have spiraled since the inception of Medicare and Medicaid; housing costs
have ballooned astronomically, in part due to government support of unions,
underwriting of loans and special tax write-offs for mortgage interest. I
could mention OSHA, EPA, minimum wage and a thousand other regulations but
you get the point. The tax system often makes us pay twice.

Lest we overlook another point regarding taxpayers: they pay taxes so that
others can have material things that the taxpayer himself may not be able
to afford. Housing instantly springs to mind. Poor folks (i.e.,
unproductive folks) move into government subsidized housing while the
hapless taxpayer struggles to save for a down payment, a process made more
difficult by the act of paying taxes. Many persons work but have no health
care coverage. Not so with those refusing to work at all. Still other
taxpayers struggle to capitalize a business while their fellow citizens
stop at the Small Business Administration for government financing of their
start-up costs. Poor mom and pop farmers feed at the government trough to
save their acres of land while a struggling taxpayer in the big city lives
on a sliver of land called an apartment.

 At the philosophic level there is something morally repugnant in forcing
people who get off their butt and work for a living to pay for that
privilege. Life can be trying to say the least but when one works, prospers
and finally succeeds it is a travesty to levy a tax on that person's "good
fortune". No working person should have to look over their shoulder to see
where the taxman is hiding. The income tax system makes citizens angry at
their government, and distrustful to boot. It makes enemies of people who
vie to place tax burdens on their fellow countrymen. It divides the nation
into permanent classes of the "haves" versus the "have-nots", divisions
that accentuate envy and ill will among the populace.

Finally I note that taxing income is hardly fair as it fails miserably as a
barometer of who should pay what. With great envy (see above paragraph) I
calculate that for the year 2003 I paid a higher income tax rate than
ketchup nabob Theresa "Heinz Inheritance" Kerry (me, 20% average rate on
income of 200k, Ms. Kerry, 11.5%, on income of 5.1M). Her fabulous wealth
immune from government pillage, she smugly endorses taxation on others so
that all below her can be equally poor. I marvel continuously that such a
system would ever employ the term "fair" as an adjective.

Of course the income tax system is not fair, has never been fair, and
indeed can never be fair. As the Ms. Kerry example demonstrates, our tax
system is based on the faulty premise that a person's income can be
arbitrarily classified to produce a tax that affects all taxpayers
equitably. A person making $200,000 in San Francisco may be worse off
financially than a rustic living in Idaho on an income of $30,000. Net
worth is the true measure of wealth, not income.

The solution to these systemic injustices is not to tweak the tax code so
that Ms. Kerry pays more. The solution is to scrap the entire system.
Anything that has had one hundred years to prove itself and fails to do so
is, well, a failure. Dismally so. The efforts of our great people must be
directed toward invention, business and improving life rather than filling
tax forms, hiring accountants and fighting the government. Work must always
be rewarded. So let us begin the fight against freedom's enemies by finally
making gross -minus net-pay equal to zero.




 About the Author:  Mr. Michael Marriott has been in the information
technology field for nineteen years. He has worked for some large companies
in the capacity of consultant including Allstate insurance, Transamerica
Financial and Saudi Aramco. Mr. Michael Marriott writes for Capitalism
Magazine.


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'