Series 2558: Constituent Correspondence, 2000-2003
38772
From: <PubliusIV@cs.com>
BC: Governor Musgrove
Created: 7/1/2000 5:27 PM
Subject: Federal Government Reforms--Position Paper #21
Message:
We continue to candidly examine the "Facts" as to tyranny in TAXES and APPROPR
IATIONS.
As in 1776 and 1787, citizens of the States must look to their closest
representatives to overcome those "Tories" who favor "the preservation of
the existing political order", wherein it is contrary to the government
envisioned in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Governors,
Lt. Governors, and State legislators, lead "We the People" of each State to
deliberate, and take concerted action among the States, to overcome the
shortcomings of our nation that detract from our National Security.
Guy G. Wooten (aka Publius IV)
[Current e-mail address: publiusiv@cs.com---lifetime forwarding:
ggwooten@alum.mit.edu]
8016 S. Grandview Avenue, Tempe, AZ 85284
Position Paper #21-Sources and Collection of Revenues (Taxes)
Let us now elaborate on the next three "principles" and "standards" to govern
the advocacy and enactment of TAXES and APPROPRIATIONS (see Position Paper
#19).
4. THE SOURCE OR SOURCES OF REVENUE TO MEET AN APPROPRIATION WILL BE SELECTED
SO AS TO MEET PRINCIPLE 3. WITH THE LEAST INEQUITIES.
At present the federal government for the most part decides sources of
revenues based on political expediency. Will voters (or special interest
groups) scream loudest if we add 5 cents tax to a gallon of gas, or if we
raise income tax rates by 1 percent, or if we go to a value added tax, etc.?
Just get the revenue where we can with least negative political effect, toss
it in the general revenue pot, and appropriate it to whomever we please!
Worst still don't collect any revenue--just increase the deficit and the
national debt, and let future Presidents and Congresses face the political
music!
5. COLLECT REVENUES IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNERS AT THE MOST APPROPRIATE
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENTS, ALLOCATING AND FORWARDING THE RECEIPTS TO THE PROPER
DESTINATIONS DESIGNATED TO MANAGE AND EXPEND THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR WHICH THE
REVENUES WERE COLLECTED.
Now that the federal government is omnipotent, it legislates and provides
partial or full funding for appropriations, for accomplishments solely within
a state, or within a region, rather than meeting only the needs of all
Americans such as common defense and GENERAL welfare. With the
implementation of principles 1., 3., and 4., the injustice (and
unconstitutionality) of having all taxpayers pay for benefits, limited to
only a portion of the country, would be corrected. Where income taxes are
involved, would it not be more efficient to have the federal government do
the collecting for itself and all states? When the federal government
decides that sales, or value added taxes, are the most equitable means of
funding particular appropriations, would it not be wise to have the states do
the collecting for the federal government, as well as themselves?
6. TAXES ARE FOR REVENUE PURPOSES ONLY.
Rest in Peace the abusive, constantly changing, politically motivated,
special interest group bought, never equitable, error prone, costly to
administer, frustrating to all involved, and really unconstitutional, complex
income tax structures! Gone will be credits, deductions, adjustments,
limits, deferments, tax tables, minimum taxes, maximum taxes, special
exemptions, etc. We will be left to deal only with uniform exemptions, and a
simple flat tax. The nation can put its lawyers, accountants, and Wall
Street, to work seeking justice, building businesses, and creating jobs,
rather than ferreting out tax dodges and loopholes, or setting up investment
schemes to avoid taxes.
For many decades, we have had two countervailing forces in the legislation of
our taxes. Force 1 sought to gouge the have-mores by multiple tax brackets,
thereby leveling wealth. Force 2 sought to protect and extend the wealth of
the have-mores (particularly the "filthy rich"), by any number of direct and
indirect means to offset the unfair bites of the higher tax brackets.
Whether the Democrats or the Republicans, or the liberals or conservatives,
were in power, generally the selfishness of Force 2 (with its money and
power) won out over the covetousness of Force 1. Both were in violation of
the Bill of Rights, in that they sought to take property without just
compensation.
A flat income tax without the possibility of dodges, loopholes, and
investment schemes is equitable to both the least and the most of the haves.
The more wealthy have more to be protected, and to be gained, from good
government in the general welfare areas appropriate to funding through income
taxes. Therefore they should pay more in absolute dollars, and they would.
For example a taxpayer having income (in excess of the uniform exemption) of
$1 million would pay $100,000 in taxes if the flat rate were 10 percent;
while a barely wealthy taxpayer with a large family, who clears just $1,000
over the uniform exemption, would pay only $100.
Similarly the more wealthy would generally pay more in sales, value added,
real and personal property taxes, since they would buy more, and higher cost,
items.
In all these cases the basis for the tax revenues would be in compliance with
the Bill of Rights in that "just compensation" was given for "private
property...taken for public use".
- Attachment Filename: C:\archives\governor\mail\Governor Musgrove\_attach\Federal Government Reforms--Position Paper #21\Mime.822
Attachments
federal_government_reforms-(1)/mime.822