Thursday, April 18, 2013

Taxation Is Theft

Taxation Is Theft:
With a tax code that exceeds 72,000 pages in length and consumes
more than six billion person hours per year to determine taxpayers'
taxable income, with an IRS that has become a feared law unto
itself, and with a government that continues to extract more wealth
from every taxpaying American every year, is it any wonder that
April 15th is a day of dread in America? Social Security taxes and
income taxes have dogged us all since their institution during the
last century, and few politicians have been willing to address
these ploys for what they are: theft.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry caused a
firestorm among big-government types during the Republican
presidential primaries last year when he called Social Security a
Ponzi scheme. He was right. It's been a scam from its inception,
and it's still a scam today.
When Social Security was established in 1935, it was intended to
provide minimal financial assistance to those too old to work. It
was also intended to cause voters to become dependent on Franklin
Delano Roosevelt's Democrats. FDR copied the idea from a system
established in Italy by Mussolini. The plan was to have certain
workers and their employers make small contributions to a fund that
would be held in trust for the workers by the government. At the
time, the average life expectancy of Americans was 61 years of age,
but Social Security didn't kick in until age 65. Thus, the system
was geared to take money from the average American worker that he
would never see returned.
Over time, life expectancy grew and surpassed 65, the so-called
trust fund was raided and spent, and the system was paying out more
money than it was taking in -- just like a Ponzi scheme. FDR called
Social Security an insurance policy. In reality, it has become
forced savings. However, the custodian of the funds -- Congress --
has stolen the savings and spent it. And the value of the savings
has been diminished by inflation.
Today, the best one can hope to receive from Social Security is
dollars with the buying power of 75 cents for every dollar
contributed. That makes Social Security worse than a Ponzi scheme.
You can get out of a Ponzi investment. You can't get out of Social
Security. Who would stay with a bank that returned only 75 percent
of one's savings?
The Constitution doesn't permit the feds to steal your money.
But steal, the feds do.
At one of last year's Republican presidential debates, a young
man asked the moderator to pose the following question to the
candidates: "If I earn a dollar, how much of it am I entitled to
keep?" The question was passed to one of the candidates, who
punted, and then the moderator changed the topic. Only Congressman
Ron Paul gave a serious post-debate answer to the young man's
question: "All of it."
Every official foundational government document -- from the
Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution to the oaths
that everyone who works for the government takes -- indicates that
the government exists to work for us. The Declaration even
proclaims that the government receives all of its powers from the
consent of the governed. If you believe all this, as I do, then
just as we don't have the power to take our neighbor's property and
distribute it against his will, we lack the ability to give that
power to the government. Stated differently, just as you lack the
moral and legal ability to take my property, you cannot authorize
the government to do so.
Here's an example you've heard before. You're sitting at home at
night, and there's a knock at the door. You open the door, and a
guy with a gun pointed at you says: "Give me your money. I want to
give it away to the less fortunate." You think he's dangerous and
crazy, so you call the police. Then you find out he
is the police, there to collect your taxes.
The framers of the Constitution understood this. For 150 years,
the federal government was run by user fees and sales of government
land and assessments to the states for services rendered. It
rejected the Hamiltonian view that the feds could take whatever
they wanted, and it followed the Jeffersonian first principle that
the only moral commercial exchanges are those that are fully
voluntary.
This worked well until the progressives took over the government
in the first decade of the 20th century. They persuaded enough
Americans to cause their state legislatures to ratify the Sixteenth
Amendment, which was designed to tax the rich and redistribute
wealth. They promised the American public that the income tax would
never exceed 3 percent of income and would only apply to the top 3
percent of earners. How wrong -- or deceptive -- they were.
Yet, the imposition of a federal income tax is more than just
taking from those who work and earn and giving to those who don't.
And it is more than just a spigot to fill the federal trough. At
its base, it is a terrifying presumption. It presumes that we don't
really own our property. It accepts the Marxist notion that the
state owns all the property and the state permits us to keep and
use whatever it needs us to have so we won't riot in the streets.
And then it steals and uses whatever it can politically get away
with. Do you believe this?
There are only three ways to acquire wealth in a free society.
The inheritance model occurs when someone gives you wealth. The
economic model occurs when you trade a skill, a talent, an asset,
knowledge, sweat, energy or creativity to a willing buyer. And the
mafia model occurs when a guy with a gun says: "Give me your money
or else."
Which model does the government use? Why do we put up with
this?