First of all it's important to realize that our system of federal income tax would be unconstitutional except that it is voluntary, and still others wage the battle against the fraud perpetrated by the US government and the private corporation that controls the US government, OUR money and the taxation of the sovereign citizens of these great 50 states.
Secondly, I am merely commenting on an abominable situation, which in no way should be construed to represent approval for any of the methods used by any individuals or groups to protest or resist the federal government or taxation.
So after coming to understand how are system of taxation came to be, and why it must be voluntary to avoid the unconstitutionality, I have finally come to an understanding of what I believe our founding fathers intended with respect to taxation.
The apportioned tax that the constitution *does* allow for is a per-capita tax levied on the states. This is how the federal government should be collecting the money that it needs to perform those useful functions it was intended for.
The system we have now is tragically inverted. We all send the money to the top of the pyramid and hope that some benefit trickles back down to us.
I believe that our founding fathers intended for the money to flow uphill. We pay ALL our taxes to our local government. That government in turn sends monies to pay for the benefits it receives from the state and federal government uphill. The state government in turn uses some of that money and sends it's fair share to the federal government.
What would this accomplish? Well, you the tax payer would be closer to the decisions being made on how the money is spent. Your local government could have a ballot item to decide whether to build a rec center, or fix the potholes. Your state government could decide how to develop the highway system, or fund the schools.
What would this avoid? The federal government now holds state governments hostage with federal highway funds, and various grants. The power (read money) was never intended to be centralized with the federal government.
Suppose Colorado decides it's an economically sensible thing to grow industrial hemp, under the current system, the feds step in and say, "No way man, someone might have fun with that stuff and puts the screws to the plan." Under the system our founding fathers intended, Colorado says, "You wanna give us a hard time about this? Well we'll just withdraw our support of the federal government until you get out of our faces."
Sounds an awful lot like a government "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" to me. It sounds a lot like exactly what our federal government fears the most!
(C) 1996 by Chuck Luciano
More thoughts ...
Back to my home page