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?

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Economy

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

Published

on

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

When Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) hadn’t been in Washington DC for very long when he said this amazing quote. At the time, many weren’t paying much attention. After all, many Republicans say similar things when they get to DC, but over time they become jaded, corrupted, or start to get used to being in the DC Country Club.

Amash is different. He has remained consistent with his message and views throughout his career. Now, it’s time for other Republicans to remember what they were sent to Washington DC to do in the first place. Defense of the Constitution is their top priority as it’s the best protection against a government that wants desperately to control every aspect of our lives. From healthcare to the internet to how we use our energy, government intervention has become so commonplace, it’s often hard to see the fabric of our nation behind all the layers of bureaucracy that has been placed on top of it.

“I follow a set of principles, I follow the Constitution. And that’s what I base my votes on. Limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty.”

If more Republicans followed the same principles and didn’t just use them in campaign speeches, we may actually be able to return liberties that have been taken and remove layers of government that have been formed unnecessarily.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Federalists

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Published

on

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Vice President Mike Pence has been a strong proponent for federalism throughout his political and radio careers. While he may have had to push his federalist leanings aside while in the White House as his boss feels the need to expand DC power, but at his core I believe he’s still a federalist.

DC power is out of control. States, cities, and most importantly individual Americans need to do whatever we can to rein in the federal government. They believe they know best despite clear evidence they don’t.

“Our founders insisted that protecting the states’ power to govern themselves was vital to limit the power of Washington and preserve freedom.”

Continue Reading

Federalists

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

Published

on

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

There’s a false narrative circulating that claims sanctuary cities are an example of the proper use of federalism that keeps law enforcement powers in the hands local, city, county, and state governments as it pertains to illegal immigrant sanctuary status. On the surface, this argument may actually make sense to some. Dig a little deeper and it’s clearly not what federalists should embrace.

Briefly, federalism is the belief that powers should be shared between all levels of government starting with the individual and family unit at the top of the pyramid and working its way down to the bottom level, the federal government. When it was first pushed by the founding father federalists such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, they fought to make sure the federal government had enough power to be relevant, as their opposition basically wanted states to have all the power. Today federalist tenets have had to refocus on taking powers away from a bloated federal government and return them to the states, counties, cities, communities, and, of course, the individual.

Proponents of sanctuary areas say they’re simply following the principles of limited government federalism by choosing to ignore federal-initiated holds for illegal immigrants who are detained by local jurisdictions. This is false federalism because it suffers from one major flaw.

For states-rights to kick in, one very important criteria must be met. The actions of one location cannot be allowed to have a major detrimental effect on another location. The federal government should only get involved in states’ affairs when their actions influence other states. Such is the case with sanctuary cities and states. Criminal illegal immigrants are not stuck in the city that ignored the federal hold orders. When they release a criminal illegal immigrant, they’re allowing them to roam free across the nation. That means the actions of a state like California can cause harm to residence of neighboring states.

We’re not talking about residents in a state without legal marijuana crossing into another state to buy a joint. We’re talking about people who have entered the country illegally, broken our right to sovereignty, and who pose a clear and present danger to American citizens.

Moreover, it creates an atmosphere of unfairness. As a legal immigrant to the United States, I receive no sanctuary in California. If I have a federal warrant against me and I’m detained for, say, drunk driving in California, they’re not going to release me so I can avoid my federal warrant. If I were an illegal immigrant instead, they would. How backwards is it that my rights as an American citizen are lower than the rights of an illegal immigrant?

Let’s not confuse the real issue, here. This is all about power. The sentiment towards illegal immigrants is both backwards and illogical in cities and states that offer sanctuary to them. Yet politicians know many will continue to vote for them in states like California because to most leftists, hurt feelings are more powerful than actual facts.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report