|
The Revenue Act of 1764 (now usually termed the Sugar Act) was actually a tax cut on a tax that was not being collected. Attempts to collect the sugar tax were largely a failure. The Stamp Act of 1765 imposed duties on just about every piece of printed material in the colonies. British officials never collected a penny through the Stamp Act. The Townshend Acts of 1767 were enacted to combat hostility to the Stamp Act. The Townshend acts applied rather small duties to items America had to import from elsewhere in the Empire. By 1769, the fear in Parliament that the Townshend Acts would hurt British merchants of these goods by encouraging Americans to develop their own manufacturing caused duties to be removed on all items except tea, an item which could not be produced in America.
The duty from tea was three pence (say $2) per pound of tea. The Tea Act of 1773 subsequently decreased tea prices sharply by allowing the British East India Company to export tea directly to America. American tea merchants were harmed by the virtual monopoly held by the British East India Company. This means that at the time of the American Revolution tax rates in the colony were still around 0.06% of the average persons annual income and the steep taxes in England were around 1.54%. Historians point out that the American Revolution was not so much about the amount of taxes, but the right of the government to levy taxes in the first place. According to the Tax Foundation, Tennesseans paid on average 29.0% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes in 2007. Compare this percentage with what the colonists or heavily taxed Englishmen were paying in 1776. Above we have outlined how a number of functions currently being performed by government could be performed better and at less expense by the private sector.
Taxation equals slavery. As a U.S. Senator Daniel Lewis would work to first reduce and then eliminate any and all taxes that he could. Government should not be a burden upon the governed. Spending must be reduced. The section above on spending cuts shows that it is both reasonable and possible to abolish the IRS and not replace it with anything else. Those who advocate replacing the IRS with a flat tax or a national sales tax are not being realistic about the spending cuts we must make at the Federal level. As a U.S. Senator Daniel Lewis would advocate implementing user fees instead of taxes. In this way people pay for the services they directly use from the government. If you or your family do not use our public schools, why should you pay for them. The notion of robbing the general public of their wealth and using it for the common good is pure Communism, a system which no elected official should ever advocate.
Taxation actually hurts the poor more than the wealthy. High property taxes make the cost of rental housing for the poor increase. High business taxes mean employers have less wealth to pay their employees. It also means that manufactures must charge more for their products. Whenever the government spends money on doing something that could be done by a private company, it will cost twice as much and be about half as efficient. The best plan is to allow people to keep their earnings and decide for themselves how they want to spend it. Private charity has a historical record of being more effective then charity at the point of the gun of a tax collector.
Realistically it would take a number of years to move a bulk of federal spending to the market sector. During this time, Congress should replace the current individual and business tax system with The Fair Tax. Once elected, Daniel Lewis would co-sponsor The Fair Tax Act (HR 25/S 1025) as an intermediate step to reducing government spending and elimination of the IRS. The Fair Tax change tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax, corporate taxes, and capital gains taxes), as well as payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax. The Fair Tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level. This payment might well have to potential of significantly reducing the number of individuals that currently qualify for welfare, by moving them above the poverty level. It might be advisable to amend the Fair Tax act to allow for an additional rebate for those who send their children to a non-government operated and funded school or home school their children. The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total price including tax (23 cents of every $1—calculated like income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional sales tax (30 cents on top of every $1). Because the U.S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices, it is expected that moving to the Fair Tax would decrease associated production costs due to the removal of business taxes and compliance costs, which is predicted to offset a portion of the Fair Tax effect on prices (degree based on monetary policy). Developing a sound monetary policy will increase the offset of the Fair Tax effect. The Fair Tax doesn’t deal specifically with the spending problem, so this must be dealt with separately. As spending is brought under control, the rate of the Fair Tax should be diminished and eventually phased out.
Once government, at all levels, is returned to its proper function, huge tax cuts will be possible. Taxation is morally wrong. Taxation violates God’s law. Exodus 20:17 commands us not to covet our neighbors possessions. When we want our neighbors money or property so that our children can have better schools, we can have better healthcare, and we can have better roads we are coveting our neighbor’s possessions. This is morally wrong. We should know the difference between our wants and our needs. Exodus 20:15 command us not to steel. When we take our neighbors money or property so that our children can have better schools, we can have better healthcare, and we can have better roads we are steeling our neighbor’s possessions. Taking property, for the benefit of another, against its owner’s will is theft. Theft is morally wrong. Romans 13:3 tells us, “… rulers are not a terror to good, but to the evil….” Indeed a government should do that which is good and that which is evil. Government has a moral obligation to work to eliminate all taxes possible.
|
