Rebel Comments

2002-10-18 03:35:00

My Friends,

Thanks for your comments on my last post. I'll make a few comments. Let's start with Larry.

Larry comments
Even though the original Constitution _implies_ that individuals should not be taxed directly, ...

More correctly the original Constitution did not allow for a direct income tax and only authorized Congress to levy taxes against the various states of the Union based population. This is spelled out in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... "

Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to collect these taxes on the states.

What you have not taken into account is the fundamental principle that the architects of the Constitution intended. It was precisely this principle that the current Federal Income Tax was designed to avoid.

The basic principle was quite simple. The Federal government was given power to levy taxes against the state governments based on population - that is one reason why we have a census every ten years. The state governments themselves were responsible for levying a tax on the citizens of the state to meet the tax obligation of the state to the Federal government. These taxes were not automatic (as the current Federal Income Tax is). It shouldn't take much imagination to see that this system of taxation would be highly restrictive on the spending of the Federal government. At regular (and relatively short) intervals the Federal government would have to come up with a tax proposal, "send the bill" to the various states, and wait for the states to levy the tax and return it to the Federal government. Of course the states would be highly critical of any levy that was deemed too high.

This method was pretty effective in limiting the spending power of the Federal government. The huge deficit spending that has characterized the Federal government since the institution of Federal income taxes would have pretty much been impossible under this system. Certainly the massive expansion of Federal bureaucracy and spending would have been impossible under this system.

In short the original system was intended to be a check on Federal spending. As long as it was the effective law of the land it did that duty admirably. The Federal Income Tax made the current system of deficit spending and huge Federal budgets possible. Some people have made the very accurate analogy that the income tax was akin to putting a penny in a fuse box. The cumbersome provisions for the Federal government to raise funds, previously was a "fuse" that was designed to "blow out" if the Federal government tried to spend too much money. The income tax completely destroyed that check on reckless government spending.

JJ
I thought this was very good information that many people do not understand so I am including it here so it will be in the permanent archives.

In addition, Dave Curtis posted some fascinating facts of the revolution as follows:

What else (besides taxes) did the patriots rebel for? Lets take a look...

1) The Quartering Act. If a British soldier needed some place to stay and food to eat, they had to let them in their homes and feed them.

2) The Proclamation of 1763 forbidding colonists to settle west of the Appellation Mountains.

3) The Writ of Assistance, which allowed the British to search their homes or property without cause.

4) The Currency Act, which took away the right of the colonists to issue their own money.

5) The Declaratory Act, which gave England the power to create whatever law they felt for the colonies without their consent.

6) The Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770.

7) The Boston Port Bill, which closed Boston Harbor until the colonists paid for the tea they threw into the sea.

8) The Administration of Justice Act, which made it so that British Soldiers could not be tried in a colonist court for crimes the commit.

9) The Massachusetts Government Act, which allowed only 1 town meeting per year unless approved otherwise.

10) The Quebec Act, which extended Canadian borders to include parts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia.

11) The Impartial Administration of Justice Act, which gave British troops freedom from Massachusetts's law. They were allowed to do whatever they wanted without worrying about consequences.

Now, how would you view English rule over the colonists? What if soldiers were allowed to commit crimes without consequence? What if the government could search your property without cause? What if the government told you where you could and could not live? What if they forced you to pay taxes in silver or gold? Beyond that, what if they took your money without representation?

I think the colonists had good reason to rebel.

Larry,
The real argument of many "tax rebels" is that we need to go back to this system of taxation. While I don't think that is either a likely, or even a desirable goal, it is only fair to at least understand what the prime justification and motivation of these "tax rebels" truly is.

JJ
I haven't kept up on tax rebel doctrine the past few years, but I do know this. Each time I have checked into it, there seems to be some new emphasis and new slants on how to legally escape the system and not pay taxes.

Many do seem to be motivated by the ideal of returning to the original Constitution saying that if we return to the letter of the law then they will pay some tax. On the other hand there are some who are not protesting for some principle, but merely because they do not want to pay any tax, period - if they can get away with it without consequences, then they are happy to join in the rebellion.

Larry
However it is entirely possible that there are some alternate plans that might have a chance of being accepted. Two of those are the so-called "flat tax", and a Federal sales tax. Personally I favor the latter plan as it rewards savings and punishes lavish consumption. Savings translate into investment and investment translates into prosperity.

JJ
I agree with you Larry. Neither of these has captured the imagination of the voters, but I believe they could if it was presented by a candidate with real charisma who was able to present his case intelligently to the people.

Perhaps more powerful yet would be a strong movement from the people putting pressure on their representatives.

There is one thing we need to remember. There is always a way to make positive change. The door is always present even though it may not seem to be. We must find the door and open it. I have ideas in this direction, but have other things on my plate that must be taken care of first.

Blayne makes some interesting comments on the tax code and laws that most are not aware of. Then he makes this statement:

"Contrary to popular belief and politicians, fear mongering government would not collapse if the income tax was halted. What would cease is the out of control federal spending as Larry pointed out. Income tax is just gravy for government politicians and their pet agendas and causes. Government brings in more then enough outside of taxation to function well. And they do this at the expense of the cells of the body or the people."

JJ
You are right that we could get along with a drastic revision except for one thing. There are so many people receiving entitlements and handouts that even a hint of withdrawing these benefits would create chaos within the nation.

The good guys must apply the same tactics as the bad guys that got us in our precarious situation to begin with. We just make incremental changes when possible while looking for that window of opportunity to make a major change. A plan also needs drawn up that will not be seen as a threat to the way of life for the majority.

Blayne:
In this case I see the body as having cancer caused by the head. This actually corresponds to some degree to cancer having emotional causes. The cells rebelling in this body are not killing the body they in fact are watching the body die and seek to save it, because the head is killing the body and the majority is going along with it. If a body has cancer spreading through it the cells that resist and do not go along with the majority who are succumbing to the cancer actually give the body a chance to survive or prolong the life of the body at least.

JJ
Taxes and spending are so out of control that it would indeed seem that the head is causing a cancer for the body, but let me put another slant on this.

Even though we grumble about the degree of taxes we have in the states, few other civilized nations have it much better and many of them are taxed more than us.

Does this mean that within the community of nations that all are sick with the same disease? This does not seem logical or possible if we use the Law of Correspondences.

What is the reason then that all of these heads seem to direct their bodies along the same path that causes problems for the body?

My answer is it is not that the various heads are ill with the same disease, but that they share a similar consciousness because of their point in evolution.

The greater bodies always lag behind the lesser bodies in evolution. In comparison to the average human being the consciousness of the head centers of nations are somewhat Neanderthal in consciousness where one member of the tribe follows the same pattern as another member of the tribe.

If we examine the tax systems, the laws and punishments of the various nations it is indeed amazing how similar they all are.

They are not sick, just a little mentally retarded.

The mission of the lights of the world is to infuse new intelligence into the head with a recognition that the head does not have to follow the tribe or flock, but can seek for new adventures, as did Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Many of us though need to knock off a few rough edges. Sometimes we do not realize they are there until life forces us into new situations.