Connect with us

Federalists

A Federalist approach to tax reform

Published

on

“Tax Reform.”

What do I mean when I use that term?  Politicians and elites of all stripes and colors tend to muck up the definition with nebulous platitudes that poll well.  The American people then end up believing the way the politicians and media have conveniently twisted and contorted the meaning of tax reform.

Real tax reform, fundamental overhaul of the entire system, is one third economics, and two thirds political.

On taxes, the Left doesn’t really make tax reform a priority, only to talk about their “middle class tax relief,” but only if tax relief is important enough to sway elections.  Why would they prioritize reform, they already have the progressive, direct tax system that they want, thanks to the racist centralizer Woodrow Wilson?

On the Right, the Republican base hates the current tax code, so tax reform is red meat to make campaign promises.  However, GOP politicians and their consultant class figured out they only need to pay lip service to tax reform, but then settle on mere tax cuts for jobs and growth.

Don’t get me wrong, supply-side tax cuts and deregulation (if we can get it) do provide growth in that moment in economic history when it’s implemented.  Nevertheless, the overall trajectory of taxation is still in the direction of the government stealing more of our property.  What has the supply-side, temporary growth really achieved?

The American people and the media have essentially defined tax reform as simply tweaks and cuts to the tax code to provide either relief or growth, depending on which side of the political spectrum you’re on.  It’s the government’s money to begin with, and the people are just cogs in the economic machine to redistribute wealth.


In the news…

White House plan for tax cuts moves forward – The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-plan-for-tax-cuts-moves-forward/2017/09/21/d1482576-9eea-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?utm_term=.e5eb6dd9a420&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1The White House plan for a massive package of tax cuts is gaining new momentum as Republicans attempt to set aside months of intraparty squabbling and unify behind a key part of President Trump’s agenda. Two developments are accelerating the effort: Key Senate Republicans reached a tentative deal this week to allow for as much as $1.5 trillion in tax reductions over 10 years; and there is a growing willingness within the GOP to embrace controversial, optimistic estimates of how much economic growth their tax plan would create. Those upbeat estimates, often rejected by nonpartisan economists, would supplant the traditional forecasts offered by official scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, helping lawmakers argue that the plan would not increase the national debt.


The Washington Post is reporting the Trump White House has a plan to push “massive tax cuts,” and that it’s apparently “gaining new momentum,” whatever that means.  But nobody, I mean none, talk about reforming the tax system to a new tax code.  All the talk is centered around who’s relief or cuts is better for the economic growth and jobs for the country broadly, and for the middle class specifically.  Oh, and apparently every economic plan has to take 10 years to go into effect, then they get to squabble over whether to make it permanent or let it expire.

I’m always equally intrigued and dismayed by news of White House plans and Republican attempts at tax reform.  Intrigued because we’re in desperate need for a tax overhaul, but I’m dismayed because I know what they usually mean by “tax reform.”

Real tax reform, fundamental overhaul of the entire system, is one third economics, and two thirds political.  Yes, there is an economic component to taxes; we are dealing with finances and money after all.  But the primary function of taxation concerns the political nature of funding government.  Therefore, the primary questions tax reform must address: what is the size and scope of the government that needs funding, and what type of government are we needing to fund?

In our Constitutional Republic, we used to have a federal government of independent states.  Is progressive direct taxation appropriate for our form of government?  Or do we need a federalist tax system that “eliminates all direct federal taxes and replaces them with a uniform, flat federal tax on the gross government revenue of each state.”

It’s called the “Neutral Tax.”


LEARN | Neutral Tax

http://www.neutraltax.com/learn/What is The Neutral Tax? The Neutral Tax is a flat, federal tax on gross state government revenue

Read The Neutral Tax White Paper Sound interesting? The Neutral Tax White Paper Read more…


It’s a reform that recognizes that we are constitutionally structured as a federal union of United States, not a national government with glorified counties and municipalities.  It takes into account that each state is different and “eliminates the federal government’s micromanagement of tax policy.”  The Neutral Tax restores the sovereignty of each state in domestic and economic affairs.

We can debate the economics of what the rate of the Neutral Tax ought to be in due time, but for now, what is the politically and constitutionally more appropriate tax system for our political system of government?

Theocratic conservative blogger and columnist, independent speechwriter, and political provocateur Trey Mays is a Christian Reformist — because culture needs fundamental reform, not revolutionary change. He is a fighter for a multi-party, decentralized Constitutional Confederacy of small Christian republics based on the standards of God's Law of Liberty. You can read his columns here at the NOQ Report, but if you want to read his more informal "news" letter, stop by TruthDispatch.com.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Federalists

Vice says women shouldn’t have guns

Published

on

On Friday, Vice’s Twitter account tweeted out a previous Vice article from June 14, 2016, entitled, “A Very Incomplete List of People Gun Rights Activists Think Should Be Armed.”

The brief article is a lamentation of the belief of Second Amendment advocates, specifically “the NRA and other right-wing groups,” that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The tweet (below) reads, “The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of: Schoolteachers, Preachers, Anyone who goes into a nightclub, Women …just to name a few.”

According to author Harry Cheadle – who evidently believes that women shouldn’t be afforded Constitutional protections or exercise our God-given human rights – “the goal [of 2A advocates] is to make sure everyone is prepared to engage in a shootout at all times.”

“And by everyone, I mean everyone,” he emphasized.

So, just who, exactly, does Vice believe should be considered prohibited from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights?

“Here is a surely incomplete list of people that gun rights activists believe should be packing heat. Once all of these categories of Americans are all carrying guns on them at all times, presumably we will finally be safe…”

The listed include (as worded the article), but are not limited to:

-Women

-Gay people

-Jews

-Holocaust victims

-Some people who commit domestic violence

-Firefighters

-Every black person in America

-Pilots on planes

-People on the terrorist watch list

Yes, ladies, you read that right. A gun in the hand of a woman is as great a risk as possible terrorists. I can imagine Mr. Cheadle must be petrified at the sight of a woman behind the wheel of a car!

Ahhh!

Yes, Mr. Cheadle is apparently quite fearful of women, Holocaust victims, and black Americans, among others.

Well, as you might expect, this didn’t go over too well on Twitter. Here are just a few of the (often snark-filled) reactions.



And, in case you are wondering about my own response to Vice’s tweet… I joined the NRA.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The Naked Truth Of Guiding Principles.

Published

on

By

The ‘SI Swimsuit edition’ is a perfect ‘illustration’ [pardon the pun] of why one needs bedrock principles.

For a moment, imagine the editorial meeting on the upcoming Sports Illustrated “Swim Suit” issue. Someone comes up with the brilliant idea of going after the premise of women as pure sex objects by making women pure sex objects – but with grease paint. After a brief, awkward silence a sycophant in true echo chamber style agrees with the concept with everyone else chimes in with approbation over the sheer genius of the idea.

This is what happens when there is no sane voice in the room that points out the sheer absurdity of the such a suggestion and steers the meeting back to more reasonable topics. It is (almost literally) the modern version of the emperor’s new clothes, a new cautionary tale of what happens under extreme groupthink. The ‘me too’ movement is now imploding in on itself because it has no real direction or guiding principles.

Two Different Revolutions, Two Different Outcomes.

Now, compare the results of the American and French revolutions with the impact of one having underlying principles to keep things on an even keel. The magnificent words of the Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson set the framework for the new nation keeping subsequent events from spinning out of control. Such was not the case with the tragic results of the French revolution for want of bedrock moral code to keep mobile vulgus at bay.

It should be clearly evident that recent events have reaffirmed that one must have a set of guiding principles or be at risk of suffering the same consequences that have afflicted all too many of the past.

Everything from the current budget deal that is being opposed by the House Freedom Caucus as reported on The Right Scoop  to the gift to the Socialist-Left Media of the possibly of having an Illinois Nazi run as a Republican in the state’s Third Congressional [and ‘very Democratic’] District as reported by the New York Times.  Its location that includes part of Chicago should mean the man doesn’t have a chance. But that won’t stop the national Media from endlessly smearing the GOP with the story.

Guiding Principles are key to a political party’s continued success.

Following a clearly articulated set of Conservative values would hold such circumstances at bay. The basic principles set forth in our nation’s founding documents of individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise. Or as presented by The Federalist party.

Holding on to such principles will keep us from digging ourselves into the budgetary hole we presently find ourselves. It will also short-circuit the media’s obsession with connecting us with a group of Socialists. There is a reason why they are labeled a platform or guiding principles, they are the foundational constructs of what we stand for, and what we oppose.

Continue Reading

Federalists

Wisconsin GOP offers choice of either a RINO or a racist for Congress

Published

on

It’s been a little over a quarter of a century since Ronald Reagan rode off into the California sunset; ever since that day the GOP has worked to destroy conservatives and conservative principles and, as a result, the party itself

This terminal condition gave rise to a group of Republicans we’ve come to know as RINOs (Republican In Name Only) because it used to be that the words “Republican” and “conservative” were synonymous. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Besides the election of Donald Trump, there is perhaps no better example of just how far the GOP has fallen from its conservative values than the rise of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan into positions of leadership. This devolution has become prima facie evidence of why now is the time for conservatives fed up with Republicans who have become nothing more than inarticulate Democrats to form a new party.

For those who would challenge my conclusions, I invite you to consider the upcoming GOP primary race between Paul Ryan and Paul Nehlen in Wisconsin.

When Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House, I knew that based on his track record of spinelessness that he wouldn’t be anymore conservative than his predecessor, John Boehner. Needless to say, I wouldn’t shed any tears if the early inductee into my Gutless On Principles Hall of Shame were to be kicked out of his cushy job in Congress this November, but should Paul Nehlen be the guy to replace him? Not a snowball’s chance in Hell.

With the support of Breitbart, along with Steve Bannon’s redefinition of conservatism, Nehlen challenged Ryan in 2016–a campaign he lost by 70 percentage points despite receiving additional support from Donald Trump and an army of alt-right nationalists who had found a home with Bannon and Trump.

In his 2018 campaign, Nehlen has taken his alt-right nationalist beliefs to David Duke levels by openly attacking Jews. In an appearance on Duke’s radio show, Nehlen stated how the “relentless attacks” against his “America First” position were due to his belief that “Jews control the media.”

As it currently stands, the GOP in Wisconsin is offering a choice between a RINO and a racist for Congress. Using the now widely accepted “lesser of two evils” approach to voting, that means that one of these men will represent the irreparable party in November.

By the way, Wisconsin isn’t an isolated case. Such losing binary choices are being foisted on conservatives all over America. I can only hope that an army of dedicated patriots will rise up and say, ENOUGH!

The solution to America’s problems won’t come from the two-party duopoly owned and operated by the Republicans and the Democrats. It’s up to us to draw a line in the sand, stand our ground, and defend our conservative values.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.