Donald Trump's tax plan may in fact stimulate the US economy; however, it will continue a form of taxation that is unconstitutional and divisive.
First, the 16th amendment provides that the federal government can collect income taxes, however; it does not provide for unequal taxation. How can progressive tax rates (0%, 10%, 20%, 25%) be justified under the 14th Amendment requirement that we all be treated equally under the law? How can a tax system constitutionally penalize or discriminate against the rich in favor of the poor? Equality requires the income tax rate be the same for everyone.
Second, we equally share responsibility for our government; however, Donald grants 50% of our citizens who will pay no income taxes, the privilege to vote on tax rates that only the other 50% will pay. This is neither equality nor liberty - it puts the wealthy in bondage to the poor. For those who wish to argue that the rich have a responsibility to the poor I ask, “Where is that found in the US Constitution?” The low income (democracy) mob will clearly steal from the rich through a system of “legal plunder” under the Donald’s tax plan.
A flat income tax rate, as proposed by Ben Carson, is constitutional and will unite us.
To be honest, I am a little disheartened to hear you say this. So might I suggest that you consider your stance on a flat tax?
ReplyDeleteYou seem justly concerned about equality, but it seems to be that you assume equality means being treated the same. I think that's a common mistake, and usually one of liberal logic. In order to attain equality, and justice for that matter, I think we have to look at a holistic picture, and not just one factor like the tax rate.
Consider our complex economy. If we lived in an economy where everyone produced exactly according to their work and efficiency then a flax tax would be fair, but we don't. We live in a very complex social system where our economic output is far greater than the sum of its parts - greater than say, if we had all simply produced crops.
Our complex market does a pretty good job of distributing the extra wealth generated in our social system by rewarding those who are hard-working, innovative, efficient, and have an education (which can lead to those other things); but let's be honest, it is not perfect. Many people become rich who didn't deserve it; and others stumble due to bad luck, circumstance, or just general economics (like changing technology).
Furthermore, the market is not generally neutral. Those who are wealthy are able to use their wealth and other power to dictate laws, avoid taxes, and otherwise stack the deck against the poor in order to facilitate the theft of a larger portion of that socially-generated wealth. Their efforts redistribute money from the poor and middle class, to themselves.
A progressive tax system is the best way to attain equality under the law. It allows those who are the most vulnerable in our society to have extra resources to meet their needs, and to get ahead, both of which economically benefit all of us. It also hinders the massive collection of wealth to a few, which has threatened to destroy our democracy during the "Gilded Age" of US history, and is doing so today. This is the "legal plunder" that we should be concerned about; and is the plunder which led to the Great Recession (and Great Depression), and the calamity today.
When it comes down to it, the incomes of the poor in this country facilitate the high incomes of the wealthy. Today's CEOs would not be able to earn hundreds of times the amount of their average workers if they were not able to pay low wages to their workers by comparison. Progressive taxation, then is a nudge in the direction of justice and equality, a small price to pay for their small wage which makes our economy work.
In your second paragraph you question where in the Constitution the responsibility to the poor is. The Constitution was founded on Judeo-Christian morality, which demands care for the poor. The constitution would be dead without God and without this morality.
Colby, a lot of your post didn't really make sense to me. It's as though your speaking about progressive taxation in the united states as though it is a good idea that we should be trying to attain, when we are already progressively taxed and have been for a long time. You do realize that the wealthy have accumulated this "massive collection of wealth which has threatened to destroy our democracy" under a progressive tax system, do you not? You contradicted yourself in your post by saying that a progressive tax system hinders the collection of wealth by these few, when in fact this massive collection of wealth that you speak of has been attained under the very tax system which you are in support of.
DeleteClearly, it's evident that the tax system doesn't work, is so asininely complex and loophole ridden and bogged down with verbiage, that a change is in order. A flat tax is a perfect idea and is fair to the American people.
"A Progressive tax system is the best way to attain equality under the law." I completely disagree with this. There is no equality when groups of people are tiered and taxed more and more heavily based on how much income they make. This directly hinders incentive to work. Why should someone go to medical school to become a doctor in hopes of making more income when they will be all the more heavily taxed because they fall into a higher tax bracket? You must understand that this directly hinders incentive to work and progress?
I agree with you however when you say that the Constituition would be dead without God and without the morality to care for the poor. But to what extent are we to care for them? To answer that question, I'd pose a question to you: What do you think the founders and writers of the Constitution would think if they saw how we are "caring" for the poor today? I think they'd roll over in their graves.
You are right, my thoughts were incomplete. It was during the Gilded Age, which I referenced, when wealth was concentrated in a few that the Progressive Tax was implemented. Even with the system, it took until WWII until the US really created a strong middle class, with small upper and lower classes. Inequality today has indeed developed during a progressive tax system, for many reasons, including many which are different than those of a hundred years ago, like changing technologies.
DeleteI completely agree that our tax system is too complex and needs to be simplified. But that doesn't mean I think we should switch to a flat income tax.
I think that having an incentive to work is very important for our economy. But as you have pointed out, we currently have a progressive tax system, and have for some time, and yet our economy has not collapsed because there is no incentive to become a doctor. In fact we have record number and percentage of people attending school to get ahead, we have people working longer and irregular hours than previous decades, and there have never been higher economic rewards to the fabulously wealthy than there are today. I think there is plenty of incentive to work, and plenty of people taking advantage of work.
When it comes down to it, the rewards of earning three or four times that of the average poor is far greater than the cost of paying a higher tax rate. That's why people do it. Many of those who are paying little to no taxes are living paycheck to paycheck, and working two or more lousy jobs. If they could, they would much rather have twice the pay, and fork over a portion of the additional money in taxes.
And remember, in a flat income tax system you will still be paying more taxes if you earn more, just not a higher percentage. Wouldn't that take away incentive too if a progressive tax does?
If we implement a flat income tax it will take money from those who have none to spare. Where the rich and middle class will pay for their taxes out of their extra funds, many of the poor are paying their entire incomes sustaining their day to day lives. A loss of that income will be horrible for them, and for all of us.
To quote the Book of Mormon, it will "grind upon the faces of the poor".
As for the founders - I have no idea how they would react to today. I don't think anyone does.
First, equality in law does mean we are treated the same. You cannot have one law for me and another law for you - special treatment of one over another is not provided for in the Constitution (except of course where SCOTUS found a right for mothers to kill their babies).
DeleteAs you point out, the current progressive tax code is full of “legal plunder” by special interests that have corrupted our representatives with money so that they get special treatment under the tax code; however, legal plunder by the wealthy is just as unconstitutional as legal plunder by the poor (or more correctly by politicians who want to have the vote of the poor). You cannot justify legal plunder for the poor because there is currently legal plunder by the wealthy. Both are equally immoral and unconstitutional. In a free society you cannot guarantee equal outcomes, but you can, and the Constitution does, guarantee equal justice. A flat tax gets rid of all legal plunder and will remove a lot of special treatment corruption from government.
“Many people become rich who didn't deserve it.” Are you the judge to determine who deserves to become rich? It appears your view of the law is to equalize outcomes by a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. HOW the government uses the collected taxes to care for the poor is not a subject I addressed. Let me address that now. There is no provision in the Constitution for the rich to provide for the poor, BUT, there is a Constitutional responsibility for government to “provide for the common good.” Many who seek to see the poor rise, support government redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation, but how does God teach us to do it?
To view this issue from our common LDS perspective, we don’t condone the Satan approach. He proposed salvation for everyone, but to get it you had to lose your agency/liberty. That was clearly not God’s plan and He fought a war in heaven to preserve His children’s liberty.
To continue ...
DeleteAs a young New Zealand citizen and LDS member, I read the revelations of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith in which He said "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land (the USA), by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose .... And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”
Equal opportunity is empowered by individual liberty as protected by the US Constitution; but equal outcomes are not guaranteed. Under our Constitution’s “provid(ing) for the common good”, the government can use tax dollars to care for the poor, but in God’s church, care for the poor is accomplished through voluntary and generous Fast Offerings, not tithing. Mormon doctrine teaches that "every needy, naked soul ... their needs and wants" are to be taken care of by "people (who) ... should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God." Nowhere in scripture is forced care of the poor taught. Equal outcomes through forced redistribution can only be achieved through losses of individual liberty.
To a Mormon then, arguments of equal outcomes is similar to the argument of Lucifer in Heaven. His equal outcome to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost" could only be accomplished by "destroy(ing) the agency (liberty) of man, which ... the Lord God, had given him ...." God’s Constitution, which He "suffered to be established, (is to) be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins (actions) in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another" - not the slave in bondage to the rich as in days past, or the rich in tax bondage to the poor as many suggest today.
I am for the government assisting the poor, funded by a system of equal taxation. As Ben Carson points out, God’s system of tithing is a great example of a fair and equitable system - we should emulate it.
I don't disagree with your concern with equal outcomes. If it seemed like I was advocating for equal outcomes I apologize. I think we can both agree that progressive taxes have never created equal outcomes, and certainly do not today. Our economy today needs a measure of inequality or else there will not be an incentive to work, to innovate, to create. But when there is excessive inequality, and people can't climb the economic ladder because the game is rigged against them by those on top, then such an incentive is lost. A progressive tax is one way to hinder such a process (emphasis on hinder, as of course it could still happen).
DeleteA progressive tax is an ally of agency. It is part of Satan's plan to use poverty to take the agency of God's people, trapping them in cycles of economic servitude, debt, and stress. A progressive tax ensures that those who are already burdened with poverty and debt are not also heavily burdened with taxes. This means that they are more able to act to meet their needs, as well as attempt to get ahead. It enables agency.
Meanwhile, the responsibility of taxes falls on those who, with a minimum of wise choices, are easily able to meet their needs, with excess. It is not a burden - not in the same way it is for the poor. Take a look at the book of Mosiah, the example of King Noah, and the king of the Lamanites, for a scriptural example of the damages of a tax which burdens the poor.
A progressive tax is not a theft. Those who are taxed are also the greatest beneficiaries of spent tax money. Remember, we live in a complex economic system where our collective economic output is greater than the sum of its parts. The system is geared towards giving greater rewards to those who are already more wealthy - as it needs to be in order to provide proper incentives. When the government spends money on infrastructure, the military like your career, and research, the rewards of that money, and the increased productivity it generates, predominantly goes to the middle class and the wealthy. Even when the government spends directly on the poor, like medicare and food stamps, the spending of the poor which this facilitates also creates middle class jobs.
Now there is plenty of waste in government spending, and of course we should do what we can to eliminate that, but for the most part government taxation and spending creates and stabilizes our economy, especially for those who are already doing well in our economy. As the rewards of our economy are not equally distributed, why should a tax be equally distributed?
I would encourage you to do some research on the history of our progressive tax system. Yes, there are many problems with our system today which should be addressed. Yet, the progressive tax remains the best tax system to enable the possibility of upward mobility, which augments personal agency. It is also the tax which has created the greatest era of prosperity in the history of this country, especially in the aftermath of WWII when tax rates were upwards of 90% until President Kennedy. Progressive taxes didn't destroy our country then, and it won't now.
As for whose responsibility to care for the poor, the government or individual people and their religions - what do the scriptures say? This is a difficult question, because I believe the Book of Mormon provides a mix of strategies.
DeleteIn the Book of Mormon, Alma the Elder takes a small band of believers and they start their own society away from any government, with a very small and simple economy. They care for the poor among them, but they believe that such care should be granted of each individual's own free will (Mosiah 18). Their system works.
Meanwhile, in another part of the land, a man named Limhi leads a large society, without any unified church, and likely with a more complex economy than in Alma’s society. There are many poor among them, especially widows after several failed military campaigns. Limhi commands wealthier families to care for the widows, or in other words he creates a tax and a welfare program.
I would love to live in a simple society where the charity of individuals and religions is enough to care for the poor. But we live in a selfish and secular society where our charity is not nearly enough for the poor of our society, much less the earth. We have much more in common with Limhi’s side of the allegory, than Alma’s, and his scriptural solution is also more applicable to our situation.
Furthermore, as I have expressed, we live in a very complex economy which is designed to transform the work of the poor into wealth for the whole economy, especially those who are already very wealthy. A certain measure of inequality is necessary to make Capitalism work, but if it is excessive then the scriptures refer to this as iniquity. This was the sin of the Zoramites in Alma 31-35, who manipulated a poor class of people into doing most of the work in their society.
It was also the sin and strategy of the Gadianton Robbers, who when they came in power, immediately began persecuting the poor (Helaman 6). In order to eventually defeat the Gadianton Robbers the Nephite government had to gather the people of all the land to one location and share all their resources (3 Nephi) – which is another scriptural example of government redistribution.
My point in this isn’t to say that the government should take the charge in caring for the poor, but that the scriptural topic is a little more complicated than you make it out to be.
For tithing being a model for our tax system. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe there is any evidence that the Lord intended tithing to be used as an economic system enacted by a government. If Ben Carson, or anyone else, really wants to enact an economic system in the Bible then I would suggest the year of Jubilee.
DeleteLeviticus directed Jewish society that every 50 years all debt would be forgiven and all slaves would go free. The purpose of this is so that inequality would not perpetuate beyond a generation, as it was debt holders who became the wealthiest in Jewish society (until the Pharisees came along, then it was them). Was it fair and the same treatment? No. Was it ultimately fair, just, and equitable? Yes. Because the people were so grateful each Jubilee that their debt was forgiven that they cared for those who followed the tenet, and thus provided for the needs of those who had temporarily lost their livelihood. This is the justice and equity of the Lord – not the same treatment.
Consider another example – the parable of the laborers. In this allegory by Jesus, a generous employer sends groups of workers out to the vineyard at several different times in the day, with each group working until the end of the day. Those who were called early obviously end up working longer than later groups. In the end, the employer gives a just compensation for a day’s labor to every group, even those who worked only in the last hour of the day. The hourly wage and the amount of work in each group was not the same, and yet justice and equity meant each group received a day’s pay – money which each group needed to sustain life. This is justice and equity – not sameness.
In the Doctrine and Covenants when Joseph teaches about the constitution and government, he encourages us to seek after civil leaders who will administer the law “in equity and justice” (D&C 134). I strongly believe this means to follow as best we can the Lord’s definition of justice and equity. To ensure that policies in our country allow the poor of this country to have their needs met, without being burdened with taxes, and with an economic system which limits their agency.
Thank you Colby - an excellent discussion.
DeleteI have not gone into great depth on how government “promote(s) the common good” by protecting the unalienable rights of its citizens for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as you have, and I agree with you that government has a role in maintaining these just rights for all its citizens including in an economic sense.
We all three seem to acknowledge that our current set of laws are riddled with special favors, or as Bastiat in “The Law” calls it, “legal plunder.” In such a system a great deal of liberty is lost. In my view it is far better that the widow both pay her mite and receive back the just rewards that help ensure her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I don't want half of Jerusalem standing by the treasury box and throwing nothing in, while they dictate how much the other half will give - that’s mob rule/pure democracy which our founders wisely rejected in favor of equality under law.
King Noah also had a progressive tax system. He and his priests payed 0% and lived off the taxes everyone else paid - legal plunder from above.
I don't agree that “inequality” is necessary for capitalism to work. If you mean that we all have different “talents” and that “talents” will often flow from the unwise to the wise, I agree with you that this creates an investor class that helps capitalism work. Throw a bunch of us naked onto a remote island and capitalism will work by virtue of our unequal natural talents. Unequal outcomes will soon become apparent, but capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than any other secular system.
As for the higher economic principles that God follows, we would do well to emulate all of them in this Telestial world as best we can. The most difficult aspect is that the higher laws are based entirely on unity and love, voluntarily given. As you know, many of us live a united order through the law of consecration (Celestial economic law) within our families even though these systems are not available in this Telestial secular society.
Maintaining equality UNDER Constitutional law ensures liberty/agency is maintained and provides the greatest hope that our people can be lifted towards these higher principles. We cannot build successfully on a foundation of special legal privilege - for the wealthy or the poor.
BTW, every 7 years is the forgiveness of debt - the Sabbatical Year.
DeleteYou are right, some measure of debt forgiveness and the freeing of slaves occurred every seven years. The 50th year, the year of Jubilee, contained further debt forgiveness, as well as the return of lands to original owners.
Delete