Taxes, Taxes, and More Taxes
I was looking through tax information earlier, and I made some discoveries that really shouldn’t be that startling, but they were a little. Everyone knows that every paycheck, they take out taxes, social security, and medicare. Some of us are always up in arms over this, some believe that the deductions are just, and the rest are either indifferent or just oblivious and they’re just happy to be getting some money. However, little does everyone know, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to government taxes. There are hidden taxes in everything we do and buy, you just may not realize it.
We’ll start with our place of employment, and then slowly work our way out. As most of you know, along with what we pay in taxes and deductions, our employer is required to match these amounts. That is good in theory, but if you think about it, in the end you’re just getting screwed over because your employer has anticipated this, and when they hire you at whatever starting wage you agree to, they have already made sure that you are starting at an amount that compensates them for the money they’re having to pay to the government to employ you. So in a sense, you yourself are actually paying your employer’s part by being paid less, where if they did not have to pay these “fees”, you would actually be getting payed more.
Now lets move a little further out to hidden service taxes. When you buy a plane ticket, a hotel room, a sporting event ticket, or when you get a vaccination, pay for insurance, obtain a license, and use public utilities, you are unknowingly taxed. On top of regular local and state taxes, these particular services are also federally taxed. You didn’t know this though because this tax is calculated into the cost already and passed directly on to you. Most of these services are generally relatively cheap, but when you add the federal taxes to the equation, they start to get expensive.
When you buy gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition, you are unknowingly federally taxed. Gas is not as expensive as most make it out to be, and while yes the oil companies are still raking in billions per quarter, gas prices are inflated by federal tax. When you factor in how much everyone makes from the sale of gasoline, it comes close to equaling what the government makes in taxes. Alcohol and tobacco taxes are considered “sin taxes” and it is very easy for the government to make mass amounts of tax revenue by hidden taxes on these items. These 2 particular items are taxed at a higher rate then any other product in America. I like to call it the poor man’s tax, because these 2 products are mostly consumed by the middle and lower classes. From what I understand, before taxes, a 6-pack of beer that would normally cost around $5.59 would cost only $3.00 or so. If you were to buy a gun or ammunition, the general upcharge in taxes is around %10.
Certain companies and industries are taxed more or less in a government attempt to control consumer spending. This is where lobbyists come into play. All of these people lobbying for certain tax breaks or penalties imposed on different companies, are using political clout to propel their interests forward while pushing competitors back using taxes to do so. During all of this, the biggest loser here is you the consumer, because in the end, all increased taxes come back on you the consumer.
The government is using shady tactics to inflate their budgets, while slowly and quietly grabbing from our pockets in ways where most of us don’t even realize it’s happening. We are charged taxes either blindly or right under our nose, and by under our nose, they actually show us the taxes, but the burden is lessened greatly by taxing us slowly instead of in one great amount. I’m sure everyone will agree, they would have a bigger problem with paying taxes if at the end of every year, they had to write the government a check instead of getting a check back.
All I’m trying to say here is that we need to wake up and realize what is going on around us, in order for us all to make a much more informed decision. While politicians talk about cutting income taxes, the questions we should be asking them is what they plan to do about all of these hidden taxes that are truly hurting us all.
Treasury Has Pledged More Funds Than Authorized
The Wall Street Journal
The Treasury Department has committed nearly $10 billion more than the $350 billion Congress has authorized to date for the financial-sector rescue package, which could constrain how the incoming Obama administration deploys the rest of the fund.
Treasury’s announcement Monday that it is directing $6 billion to auto-finance company GMAC LLC brought to $358.4 billion the total funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program that have been pledged to a variety of programs and guarantees. That suggests Treasury is tapping into the second half of the $700 billion set aside in October before it has been released by Congress.
“They are pushing the envelope here,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), a critic of the bailout. “What they are trying to do is create a situation to put pressure on [President-elect Barack] Obama and the Congress to provide the next $350 billion.”
Under the legislation that approved the bailout funds, Treasury received $350 billion and was required to request access to the rest by providing a detailed plan of how the money would be spent. The goal was to provide a check for lawmakers wary about Treasury’s broad authority under the legislation.
Treasury says the agency has complied with the rescue legislation. A Treasury official briefing reporters Monday said that “from a short-term cash-flow basis,” the department hasn’t come close to the $350 billion limit because not all its commitments have been fulfilled. As of Tuesday, roughly $207 billion had been disbursed.
Treasury’s actual commitments include $250 billion for capital injections into banks, $40 billion for insurer American International Group Inc., $20 billion for a Federal Reserve consumer-finance program, $25 billion for Citigroup Inc. and $23.4 billion in aid to the auto industry.
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment Tuesday on whether the newest commitments were based on the assumption that Congress would release the second installment, or would require reallocating money that had been promised to others.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Obama’s transition team declined to comment.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, in announcing the auto-rescue plan Dec. 19, said “it is clear” that Congress will have to release the second $350 billion tranche to maintain financial-market stability.
Government’s Role in the Economy
When we say that we want to keep government out of the economy, people often ask, “Isn’t that economic anarchy?”At first our “Wall of Separation” commitment (that is, a commitment to keeping a wall of separation between economy and State) may seem a little bit like anarchy; however, we do believe government has a function in the economy. It’s just that its role is very limited, and it is centered around the protection of property rights from fraud and abuse.
From our platform:
2.0 Economic Liberty
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
So what do we mean when we say we want to keep government out of the economy, yet still maintain it has a role? We want to avoid exactly what government is doing now: micromanaging the largest economy in the world.
As the saying goes, “The freer the market, the freer the people.” Government has a necessary and proper role in our society to protect property rights, and this includes property rights in the market. However, government does not have a responsibility to micromanage the economy.
Though, as of late, government seems more prone to rewarding possible fraud than investigating it.
Government Programs Die Hard
Libertarian Party Warns Against Further Government Spending
America’s largest third party is warning against the institution of new government programs in the wake of the current economic crisis. “Government programs tend to linger with disastrous economic consequences,” says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.
“Congress needs to exercise extreme caution when considering any new government programs that are intended to act as a remedy for economic decline,” says Davis. “The New Deal taught us that government programs die hard, and we’re still suffering from the leftovers of FDR’s administration.”
“Government got us here, and more government will not get us out,” observes Davis.
The Libertarian Party blames the current economic crisis on government’s intervention in the economy, and worries about the economic impact of exploding government expenditures.
“Out of every four dollars of economic activity, one of those is from federal government spending,” Davis notes. “Not since World War II have we seen the federal share of the economy at this level. This will have severe economic consequences down the road if we don’t look for options to this economic crisis other than more government spending.”
According to an article published on Dec. 10, 2008 in USA Today, the federal share of the economy was at its highest in 1943 and 1944, at 44 percent.
“Trying to solve this economic crisis by risking another one in the future is not sound, sensible, responsible policy,” says Davis. “There are several other options for economic relief that don’t involve increasing government, such as tax cuts, deregulation and an avoidance of anything resembling a bailout.”
The Libertarian Party has recently focused on the spending plans of the incoming Obama administration, which includes plans for the largest public works project since the 1950s. The cost is projected to reach more than $500 billion dollars.
“It’s understandable that in these hard economic times that people are looking for answers and solutions,” Davis explains. “However, history has taught us that government solutions only worsen problems, and do nothing to expedite recovery. The federal government has already put taxpayers at an incredible risk for trillions of dollars with the last bailout. Any further action will just dig that hole even deeper.”
“It’s absolutely immoral to strap future generations of taxpayers with this level of debt,” says Davis.
The platform of the Libertarian Party states “a free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner,” adding that the only role of government in the economy is to “protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.”
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please email Andrew Davis at andrew.davis@lp.org, or call (202) 731-0002.
The Libertarian Party is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
California Case Represents Ills of Direct Democracy
Our current Republic still has strong elements of direct democracy. Voter referendums and other ballot initiatives leave it up to the citizens to decide on issues like lotteries, gambling, gay marriage, abortion and any other legislative initiative citizens would rather see themselves decide rather than their elected officials.
On its surface, direct democracy is appealing because those like Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich and Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens do not have a chance to craft the laws by which the people are governed.
Majority rule—it’s the American way.
However, the recent debacle in California over gay marriage illustrates the dangers and failures of direct democracy.
In the Nov. 2008 elections, California citizens were asked to vote on Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in California. And, to the surprise of the state (and the nation as well), Proposition 8 passed by 52 to 47 percent.
Had this been direct democracy, it would have ended there with one phrase: “The people have spoken.” But this was not to be the case in the great state of California, where California Attorney General Jerry Brown is currently petitioning the California Supreme Court to knock down Proposition 8 for what he believes to be a Constitutional violation. The linchpin of his case is whether the right of people to marry is considered an “inalienable” right, which the California constitution says cannot be violated—even by the vote of the people to change the Constitution.
“[The issue] presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, on the other,” says Brown. He is questioning “whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”
This is a great question, and one proponents of direct democracy have failed to adequately answer.
The prevailing philosophy of direct democracy is that people should have the final say about the laws by which they are governed. Should this be so, then it would seem that the Constitution would have no supremacy over a direct vote, at least if it is a Constitutional amendment. Granted, people may still change the Constitution in our present form of government, but the case in California has a different moral than its constitutional implications. Proposition 8 represents the ultimate failure in direct democracy and majority rule—when the people vote against more freedom, rather than for more freedom.
The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government–both gay and straight marriages. “Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships,” says the Party’s platform. However, some Libertarians argue that until marriage ceases to become a government-licensed institution, there should be equality in it regardless of sexual orientation.
Regardless of the issue specifically with gay marriage, the problem with direct democracy in this case is that the people felt that they had a right to restrict, regulate, prohibit or limit the relationships of their neighbors, and in a system where the majority rule, it certainly was in their authority to do so.
This is not to say that direct democracy could never work, but it could only do so in a libertarian utopia that could also foster voluntarily socialism, societal anarchy or a number of other systems of order that rely on the perfect behavior of those governed. In order for direct democracy to work without violating the rights of others, those citizens who voted would have to have an absolute understanding of and dedication to property rights and individual liberty—something that is extremely unlikely to ever exist.
There is no place for any broad use of direct democracy in a free society because the majority does not always respect the rights of the whole. Even by a simple test against our platform, direct democracy does not stand up to the phrase: “No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.”
Government, in its good and bad days, is still comprised of citizens who run for public office; the same citizens who would be voting in a system of direct democracy. The laws passed by our elected officials could just as easily be those passed by citizens in a direct democracy. The problem that direct democracy seeks to resolve is not really how we are governed, but by whom we are governed. And, since we elect those that govern us, we are indirectly responsible for many of the laws that are passed.
One of the most insufferable failures of direct democracy is its vulnerability to the whims and trends of public opinion—something our Founding Fathers hoped to avoid at all costs. This is one of the reasons why the Constitution is so difficult to change.
Laws last much longer than the moods of public opinion, and what society may feel at one point in time may not be what society feels 50 years into the future. Slavery is just one example. Giving power directly back to the people undermines this protection from the tyranny of the majority, and as Libertarians, we fully know what abuse of the minority feels like.
As far as California goes, the people have spoken, even if it’s not what some wanted to hear. So long as people are allowed to put referendums on the ballot, there will be times when the majority wins at the cost of minority rights. Does it make it right? Of course not, but that is the risk one takes when transferring direct power from the legislature back to the citizens.
Politics is a reflection of the morality of the people, and our problems with the corruption of government will be solved not by giving people direct control over laws. It will be solved when people begin voting-in public officials who are above corruption. And, should these politicians eventually slip up, citizens vote them out of office.
It’s far easier to change out a politician than it is to change a Constitutional amendment.
Direct democracy misses the entire point of government corruption while opening up civil rights to wholesale abuse by the masses. The best defense against domestic tyranny is not an empowered public, but an informed one.