Skip to comments.Taxpayers, Revolt!
Posted on 11/29/2012 6:33:21 AM PST by Kaslin
Congress returned to "work" this week (now there's a laugh) to complete its lame-duck session before taking another holiday. Spending other people's money is a taxing experience.
Their task is to avoid the "fiscal cliff," a geological construct of their own making. It doesn't take a genius to predict both parties will try to do two things: (1) reach an agreement that will allow each side to take some credit and (2) require those who work for a living to pay government more while they come up with phony, or inconsequential spending "cuts."
Whatever they do, payroll taxes are going up January 1 and new taxes associated with Obamacare will soon follow. It is beyond argument that additional revenue isn't the solution to the problem of uncontrolled spending.
According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, writer Christopher Chantrill's "resource on government taxes and receipts in the United States," "Total revenue at all levels of government in the United States is 'guesstimated' to be $5.5 trillion in 2013." Unfortunately, our projected debt will be $17.5 trillion. Absent reforms, the U.S. Senate Budget Committee predicts the federal government could be $20 trillion in debt by 2016. Clearly, it's not lack of revenue that is driving the debt; it is lack of spending restraint.
How much more should we subsidize government irresponsibility? If the answer is "not another dime" perhaps the time has come for a taxpayer revolt.
In 1978, the late Howard Jarvis and his wife led a successful drive to put Proposition 13 on the California ballot. The measure, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters, limited rapidly rising property taxes. According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association website, Proposition 13 "has saved Californians $400 billion and allowed millions of Californians to keep their homes."
What is needed is a leader with the determination of Howard Jarvis who can organize nationally to keep government from constantly pilfering the assets of the productive so politicians can subsidize the unproductive, buy their votes and addict them to entitlements.
As long as taxpayers continue to acquiesce to the politicians in their never-ending search for more revenue, they will keep taking it, all the while attacking "millionaires and billionaires" for not paying their "fair share."
Perhaps the revolt can start with the so-called "rich," those making more than $250,000 a year. That has always been an arbitrary figure applied to all, regardless of their personal circumstances. Suppose people who are able decided to limit their income to $249,999.99 in 2013? If they make a lot more than that, they could consult their tax adviser about legally placing the excess in tax-free municipal bonds or other tax shelters, depriving the government beast its sustenance.
The tax system in this country is based on willful compliance. It wouldn't take many "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore" taxpayers to creatively, but legally, withhold from the government some of the money they earn.
Members of both parties are guilty of not reforming entitlements and failing to put the people first. Their intransigence is robbing future generations of their right to economic independence and economic growth.
America was birthed during a tax revolt. Expecting politicians to fix a problem of their own making rarely succeeds. Maybe it's time to force the issue by having taxpayers go on strike. It sometimes works for labor unions. Giving more money to the government hoping it will responsibly spend it is like offering a child chocolate and expecting him not to eat it.
Yes, it sounds impractical and some will say it isn't doable. But what other avenues are open to wealth creators? The government has become an enormous panhandler, constantly asking for ever-greater amounts of other people's money. Let's tell them "no more" at least until we see real spending reform and policies that result in economic growth, which by itself would produce more tax revenue.
Absent members of Congress acting responsibly, does anyone have a better idea? If so, send it to me. I eagerly await all legal and credible suggestions.
How 'bout some examples?
(Assuming that putting one's money into tax-deferred IRAs, etc, isn't going to be an option if 0 has his way.)
We need a ‘tent city’ of unemployed (NOT, ‘UNEMPLOYABLE’) Conservatives parked outside the WH as a daily reminder of the economic situation in the US and as a reminder that “O” has his head so far up his a^% that he NEEDS a daily reminder!
THAT would be a little difficult for the MSM to spin into anything but exactly what it IS!
There are certainly enough unemployed Conservatives out there to get this done!
Call a full session of Congress. Chain the doors shut. Give ‘em a test on the limits the Constitution imposes on their power.
Those that pass can go free.
The rest? Burn the building down.
Have no doubt, CW-II is coming.
The only doubt is whether or not we’ll also be in a war with Islam at the same time.
Though not particularly well said, I think what the columnist was proposing could be called a “second tier Laffer curve.”
Briefly put, the Laffer curve says that when the rich are taxed more than they are willing to pay, they will divert their investments in the direction of investments that pay less tax. For example moving their investments from stocks to tax-free municipal bonds.
So the question becomes, what can the middle class do to reduce their taxes? Since they likely have far less capital gains and other taxable investments, they need to be more creative, while still behaving in a legal manner, to “avoid” (legal) taxes, rather than to “evade” (illegal) taxes.
Probably the best way to start is to “go cash”. That is, though you may be required to have direct deposit of your paycheck, only keep a minimal balance in the bank, withdrawing your pay in cash, once deposited, keeping your money in a *good* safe at home. Discontinue using credit and debit cards.
This makes you less visible to the tax gatherers, who now monitor all banking and credit transactions. When your money is in the bank, *they* control it, you do not.
I’m sure there are lots of other ways for a middle class person to legally avoid taxes. Though it will make Obama blue and sad and he will call you names.
We keep wanting to win this in one big battle. It won’t happen that way. We have to win some smaller battles. The Democrats don’t look at politics as a 100% game. They know they only need 51% of the vote to win. So their strategies are based on getting that 51%. We just need to chip away a few percentage points. Here’s a way. Keep your kids at home for a couple more years. Keep them from going to college for a couple of years. The universities will laugh at losing students for a year. But what about two years? Then, they are at risk of people finding out how useless they are. Little Bobby and little Suzie can work part-time jobs for a couple of years to help pay their grocery bill. They’ll probably learn more valuable lessons there than in college anyway. What happens to the universities when their student enrollment drops 50%? Some of the kids are little rats, but why saddle them with tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a worthless diploma? Throw the professors out on the street. That’s how we win. Why are you hustling and racing to put your child into debt? Relax. Keep them at home for a couple more years. Drive the price of tuition down.
I guess everyone who draws a paycheck could claim 12 dependents. That would put a hole in their purse.
I talked to a small business owner down the street and he told me he will never pay taxes because he’ll take deductions that can’t be proven to be illegal. And his salary will be equal to his number of dependents and mortgage interest. Successful small business owners didn’t become successful by being stupid.