MONUMENT

This is a pretend story.  It will NEVER happen.  I hope you enjoy it anyway.

Once upon a time the President was sitting in the White House talking with his Budget Director.  He realized that the money for the nearly $4 trillion dollar budget had to come from somewhere.[i]  Henry, his Budget Director, told him about 42% came from individual income taxes and about 9% from corporate income taxes.  Another 1% came from estate taxes.  40% came from payroll taxes.[ii]  “Of course that is not enough to cover all the federal government spends,” Henry explained, “that is why the deficit is growing so rapidly.”

Who pays all of these taxes?” the President asked.  Henry responded that taxpayers are ranked by their “adjusted gross income” as reported on their tax returns.  The top 1% pay 36.7% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay 70.5% and the top 50% pay 97.3%.  Those in the lower 50% pay only 2.25%.[iii]

“That seems like a lot for the top ten percent to be paying,” commented the President.

“Oh, it’s much better than that, President.  We really get them!” chortled Henry.  “The top rate for rich people’s personal income tax is 35%.[iv]  But you must realize that almost all corporations are owned by rich people, so the rich are really paying the corporate income tax too.  The corporate tax rate can be up to 38%.”[v]  That means when their corporations earn profits we grab 38% of it, and then when the corporations pay those profits out to their shareholders as dividends we tax the same money up to another 35%.  If the value of their stock goes up over the years, and they sell it, then we tax that at a 15% capital gains rate.[vi]  And when they die we take 35% of their property through the federal estate tax.[vii]  Don’t be disappointed President, we’re doing everything we can now to raise all of these tax rates on the rich so we can get even more money from them.”

“How much more money would rich people be getting if all income taxes disappeared?”

Henry looked thoughtful for a moment and said, “Well, I guess it could be 73% because they wouldn’t have personal or corporate income tax to pay.”

“Are the non-rich paying any taxes?”

Henry answered apologetically: “Yes. We can’t avoid it.  Even the rich could not pay for all of Social Security and Medicare.  Everyone pays payroll taxes to cover those programs.  That provides 40% of federal revenue.  Of course when people receive back what they have contributed to Social Security we tax them on that as well.”

“Thanks, Henry.  I’ve got to think about this.”  It was a new and astounding realization for the President.  Rather than being enemies of the country, the rich were overwhelmingly its primary benefactors.  The President wanted to analyze and understand what he had heard.  He needed to get away from the Oval Office, maybe even get out of the White House so he had his chauffer and Secret Service take him on a short drive around the mall.  He admired the tall and striking Washington Monument and thought, no matter how courageous the early Patriots were, they would have never won the war without money to buy munitions, food, and everything else that went into winning.[viii]  The President then came to the Lincoln Memorial, and realized once again that winning the Civil War—with the wonderful result of freeing the slaves—depended not only on brave troops and generals, but also on money.  Who provided it?  One major source was the nation’s first progressive income tax.[ix]

As the President thought about these crucial wars, as well as all wars since then, he realized everything depended upon tax payers.  Yet they went unacknowledged.

Upon returning to the White House the President called in his Cabinet and pronounced: “I have come to the realization that tax-payers, particularly the rich—in fact, overwhelmingly the rich—are a primary cause of all that we have accomplished since the nation’s conception.  Yet no one ever applauds their contribution.  As far as I know, there is not a single monument to tax payers yet their contribution is far more valuable than so many politicians whose statues litter the landscape.  I propose a new National Monument to Tax Payers!”

His Cabinet was shocked!  They were also terrified, because their entire plan for his re-election (and thus keeping their jobs) was based on vilifying rich tax payers.  He was adamant, however.  “We’re it not for taxpayers—overwhelmingly rich taxpayers—our troops would be fighting with sling shots.  There would be no welfare payments for the poor, no tuition grants for students, no investment in research.  We need to honor those who provide all of these things.”

“But, President,” spoke up the Secretary of the Treasury, “tax payers shouldn’t be honored.  We force them to pay taxes.  We take it from them whether they like it or not.  We confiscate their property if they don’t pay!”

“That may be true, Secretary” said the President, “but don’t we honor the draftees along with those who volunteered to fight in World War II.  Compulsory contributions are still contributions.”

That ended the discussion.  Soon plans were going ahead for a new monument, a duplicate of the Washington Monument, to “The American Taxpayer.”  After great debate, and only upon the final insistence of the President, it was decided the Monument would reflect the respective contributions of each group of American tax payers.  The Washington Monument is 555 feet tall.[x]  Rather than being smooth, like the Washington Monument, the American Taxpayer Monument would have faces of great taxpayers displayed in bas-relief on its sides.  They discovered that the portion devoted to really rich tax payers, those in the top 1% who contributed far more than anyone, would take up the bottom 200 feet of the monument.  The next 9%, those in the top ten percent of tax payers but not in the top one percent, would take up about another 200 feet.  Most of the remaining space, about 140 feet, would go to those in the top 50%.

Pictures of the remaining 50% of income tax payers were an artistic challenge.  Millions and millions of them had to be scrunched into the top 12 feet—the top 2.2% of the Monument.  The U.S. Commissioner of Fine Arts objected, claiming that those who paid no income taxes should not be so poorly portrayed.  He rightly noted that these millions upon millions provided much of the greatness of America.  The President’s response was, “Yes, you are right.  Someday we’ll need monuments to Academics, Laborers, Artists, whomever you want.  But right now the country needs money.  Let’s celebrate those who provide it!”

Yes, yes, it will never happen—a President expressing gratitude for those who provide the where-with-all for every Presidential program.  But I told you at the beginning this was just a pretend story.


 

[i]   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/federal-budget-factsheet-fiscal-year/

[ii]   http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue-sources

[iii]  Those are number for 2009.  http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[iv]  http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

[v]   http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

[vi]   http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm

[vii]  It’s scheduled to go up to 55% next year.  http://wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxes /a/estatetaxchart.htm

[viii]  Read, for example,about Robert Morris.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_(financier)

[ix] http://walter-coffey.suite101.com/financing-the-civil-war-a242244

[x]  http://www.nps.gov/wamo/index.htm

Posted in Defending Freedom, National Debt, Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , , ,

FOUND WANTING

When Britain was faced with either going to war to protect Czechoslovakia or giving in to Hitler’s demands, they chose appeasement.[i]  The cheering throng welcomed Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain home and rejoiced in his promise that by giving in they would have “Peace for our time.”  Instead they got World War II.

Winston Churchill, the great war-time leader who replaced Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister, made the most damning indictment he could of Chamberlain’s sacrifice of Czechoslovakia to appease Nazi Germany.  In speaking to Parliament upon Chamberlain’s return he said:

“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat . . . . the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.”  Churchill prophesied that only with “a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, [could Britain]  arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” [ii]  That is precisely what Britain did!

Why did this incredibly gifted speaker choose to phrase his condemnation, so pointedly meaningful for his audience, with the words: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting?”

How many in this generation could even comprehend what Churchill was saying?  Churchill’s wording is an exact quote from an even more damning warning given through the Old Testament prophet Daniel to Belshazzar, King of Babylon.  How far has Western culture strayed from its Biblical foundation since Churchill’s time so that now, due to Biblical illiteracy, few understand the powerful Biblical reference used by Churchill—a reference he expected to resonate with all listeners in his day.

Churchill was reminding Parliament of what happened at a huge feast in ancient times when King Belshazzar was wining and dining the lords of his kingdom using vessels the Babylonians had plundered from Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem.  During the feast a hand appeared and wrote on the wall.  No one could interpret until Daniel, the Jewish prophet, was called.  He told Belshazzar:

“And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.  This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.  TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.  PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. (Daniel 5:22 – 31)”

The prophesy was fulfilled that night.  The Medes and Persians overthrew Babylon which has been a ruin to this day.

This story is the common heritage of Jews and Christians.  For century after century Judeo-Christian scriptures informed the thinking of leaders of the Western world.  It was part of that powerful faith that lead the Founding Fathers to proclaim so boldly that there was a Creator who endowed us with life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness.  How can a nation, ignorant of that foundation, hope to preserve the institutions they created?  How can those who believe mankind is no more than the accidental effusion of a hostile planet protect the Constitution crafted on such religious premises?

A tidal wave of secularism has swept over Europe and America since Churchill’s day.  Those who claim all religion is a superstitious search for meaning where there is none now dominate much of academia and the media.  Religious literacy has plummeted.  How many of this generation, visiting the magnificent cathedrals of Europe, can tell the stories displayed most beautifully in stained glass windows?  In ages past, everyone could.  Expressions of belief in God, and theories premised on there being an intelligent Creator, are excluded from schools and civic functions with the rigor once reserved for witch hunts.  Lost to our political culture is the fact that it was their belief in a Creator that empowered the founders of this nation to craft the Declaration of Independence and our marvelous Constitution.  It was Thomas Paine’s call to Biblical precedents in Common Sense that lifted a nation from an attitude of subservience to one fighting for independence.  Can we pass that that most precious heritage onto our posterity if we do not also pass on the religious beliefs upon which it is based?

Atheism is essentially and unavoidably pessimistic.  If mankind is no more noble than germs—just another branch of evolving life—then the death of mankind in a nuclear holocaust is no more meaningful than the death of billions of bacteria each time someone washes their hands.  Atheists claim that mankind keeps turning to religion/superstition because of some frantic need to find meaning for life amid its inevitable challenges.  They are wrong.  Rather we are religious because we know, innately, that there is a deep, abiding significance not only to life generally, but to our individual lives—that there is something perfectible about every human being.  We know we do not live just to die and disappear.  It is that outlook, that religious outlook, that underlies our country’s greatness, not some federal program or bureaucratic regulation.  It is the scriptures that deal with the truly great problems of life— and provide the great solutions.

Believers should not submit to the ignorant demands of those who, through inadequate religious education or outright rejection, have no spiritual roots.  We want religion to be independent of government control and government to be neutral on religious issues.  But we do not want our country or our culture to become a religious vacuum as many atheists so ardently demand.  Such a moral vacuum will collapse on itself, destroying the religious foundation of this country.  If we permit that to happen then it will be said of this generation: “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting!”


[i]  See post on “Appeasement”, January 9, 2012 in truthtofreedom.com

[ii]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

Posted in Defending Freedom, Freedom of Religion, Political Culture | Tagged , , , , ,

OBAMACARE

Our society, as all others have, must face the question: what level of care should we provide to those who are unable to care for themselves?  Sometimes that inability is due to conditions beyond anyone’s control—such as ill health or accident.  Sometimes it is due to bad choices—out of ignorance, or defiant choices made willfully.  These individuals—and even more so their children—will suffer severely if others do not provide what they cannot.

Imagine a child with an unknown father and a single mother on drugs.  The child falls down the stairs and breaks his arm.  Should our society stand by and say: “Because of the abysmally bad choices made by your parents (who have neither health insurance nor funds to pay for hospital care) your broken arm must go untreated!”  Of course not!  This shared belief, held by almost all Americans—that no one should be denied essential health care—is the root issue dealt with by Obamacare.  If we as a society are going to insist that everyone get health care, we also as a society must determine how it will be paid for.

Our insistence that no one be denied essential health care is embodied in the EMTALA.  As stated in Wikipedia:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 [Reagan’s second term] . . . requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing  emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.  THERE ARE NO REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS.  [emphasis added]  [In other words, Congress required that everyone receive emergency medical care but provided no funding]. . . .  In practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S.

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government.  Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.  Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is “overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented.”  MORE THAN HALF OF ALL EMERGENCY ROOM CARE IN THE U.S. NOW GOES UNCOMPENSATED.  [emphasis added]  Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes.  [Which means they pass the cost, at least partially, on to taxpayers].  Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA’s passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.  There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.[i]  [Which means they pass the rest of the cost on to those who do pay for hospital care by charging them more].

An emergency room doctor tells me of a young couple bringing in their baby with diaper rash because they didn’t want to pay to go to a doctor and apparently because they had never heard of Desitin.

Obamacare appears to be a genuine attempt to get all of those who are free-loading on the health care system to help pay for it.  President Obama, however, was terrified of being accused of raising taxes on the middle and lower economic classes, so Obamacare doesn’t do the obvious: simply compel everyone to pay extra taxes to reimburse hospitals for their care.  Instead it compels everyone to purchase health insurance or be fined.  The result for the hospitals is the same.  They will now get reimbursed by this compulsory insurance.  The result for all of the free-loaders is the same.  Instead of being compelled to pay a tax, they are compelled to purchase health insurance.  Either way it is a compulsory payment.[ii]

The odd fall-out of this political strategy is that President Obama really is taxing those he promised not to tax but refuses to admit it.  The cost of this deception to the country is that Obamacare’s compulsory health insurance can only be justified as a constitutionally authorized regulation of interstate commerce—an extension of the already hyper-extended federal power into an area never dreamt of by the drafters of the Constitution.  They were very specific in creating a federal government with enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.  To make it emphatically clear that nothing should be added, the Tenth amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The difference between “Romneycare”—a compulsory health insurance program adopted by the state legislature of Massachusetts—and Obamacare— federally mandated health insurance for the nation—is the Tenth Amendment.  Romneycare in no way conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.  Obamacare contradicts it.  The dangers of using Congress’s power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states” as the far-fetched justification for Obamacare is that, if upheld, it will (unfortunately, once again) prove that the Supreme Court has erased the concept that the federal government should be one of limited powers and that all residual powers lie in the states and individuals.

All debate over national healthcare should focus on the real issue: Who is going to pay for health care, particularly emergency room care, for those who either cannot or won’t pay for it themselves?  When debating Obamacare two things should be emphasized: (1) it really is a tax on the middle and some of the lower class; and (2) it is a quintessential example of federal power being extended far beyond any reasonable reading of the Constitution.  There is no debate over whether or not we are going to provide at least emergency room health care for all.  Even Reagan believed in that.  He just didn’t find a way to pay for it.  That is what we should be debating.  Is it the role of the constitutionally limited federal government to fund it—and if so, how—or is it one of those issues left to the states by the Tenth Amendment?


 

[i]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

[ii] Except that, like current income taxes, the poor pay none.  Medicaid is vastly expanded to cover low income individuals.  Illegal immigrants must still be cared for my hospitals without compensation.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_ Protection_ and_Affordable_Care_Act

Posted in Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

PAYING OFF THE PRAETORIAN GUARD

As Rome changed from a Kingdom to a Republic and finally to an Empire, individual political rights steadily declined.  In the Empire, the Emperor ruled autocratically, arbitrarily killing any who opposed—or who were suspected of opposing—him.  The legislative powers held earlier by the Roman Citizen’s Assembly and then by the Commoner’s Assembly were stripped and transferred, ultimately to the Emperor.[i]  Emperors, in turn, learned they had to pay off the military to stay in power.  That strategy lives again today as some of those seeking re-election promise ever-more generous benefits to those who vote for them.

Illustrative is the tale of Commodus (161-192 A.D.), son of the venerated Marcus Aurelius, and his successor.  Upon his becoming Roman Emperor, Commodus promptly withdrew the army from a difficult campaign—much to the disgust of his generals.  He gave each of the plebians (free citizens of Rome) the unprecedented gift of 725 denarii each (1 denarius = $20).[ii]  He had coins minted naming himself “Munificentia Augusta”.  Commodus obtained the funds for this munificence by taxing the Senatorial Class—taxing the richest one percent more so he could distribute largesse to the plebeians.  “While the Senate hated Commodus, the army and the lower classes loved him.”[iii]  He was unrestrained in his own personal behavior and merciless to any who opposed him.  He put so many of the nobility to death that hardly any of the former leaders of Rome survived.[iv]  His generosity left Rome broke.  Gibbons, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, reports: “Though every measure of injustice and extortion had been adopted, which could collect the property of the subject into the coffers of the prince; the rapaciousness of Commodus had been so inadequate to his extravagance, that, upon his death, no more than eight thousand pounds were found in the exhausted treasury to defray the current expenses of government and to discharge the pressing demand of a liberal donative, which the new emperor had been obliged to promise to the Praetorian Guard.”[v]

Why did even the almost bankrupt new emperor have to “discharge the pressing demand” for a money donative to the army?  In an empire, or tyranny of any sort, the tyrant can only retain power with the support of the army—just as in a democracy the president can only retain power with the support of the voters.  Roman emperors quickly learned that they had to buy-off the Praetorian Guard both to obtain and to stay in power.  The Praetorian Guard were allowed within the City of Rome and provided the real muscle to enforce the emperor’s whims.  That is why the emperor who followed Commodus had to promise to pay off the Praetorian Guard even though Rome was broke.  After only 86 days of rule, however, the Praetorian Guard got rid of the new emperor and put the emperorship up for auction.  Didius Julianus outbid Sulpicianus at the gates of the Praetorian camp and was promptly crowned.  He, in turn, lasted only 66 days, but that is another story of the army replacing one tyrant with another.[vi]  Donativum[vii] to the soldiers and Congiarium[viii] to the plebians—both gifts of money—were routine parts of the Roman political process.

They are also a routine part of the American political process.  Pay-offs to likely voters are pandemic in America: the Earned Income Tax Credit, exemptions from taxes and fees and ever more grants of free services and benefits to those who are in the favored group, and the opposite for those who are not.  This generosity has become an essential part of the electoral process—even when everyone acknowledges the country is already broke and must borrow money just to meet current debts.  Analyze each re-election speech you hear and make a list of how many promises it contains of even more benefits to voters.  For example, the recent State of the Union speech promised: more money for school teachers, extending reduced interest rates on student loans and the tuition tax credit, amnesty for illegal immigrants in school or military, funding for universities doing research, subsidies for new energy sources, more tax credits for clean energy and cutting energy use in business buildings, vastly increased construction projects (using half of the savings from pulling the army out of Iraq and Afghanistan),  cutting the payroll tax by $40/person, and tax credits for businesses that hire veterans.  Who couldn’t like that stuff?  Just like who could turn down 725 denarii?

The Praetorian Guard should have been protecting Rome, not auctioning off the emperorship.  Now whole sections of the electorate seem willing to auction off the presidency, heedless of the competence of who they are electing or re-electing.  Don’t doubt that the promises in the State of the Union are a donative.  Were they legitimate proposals for legislation, they would have been made three years ago when the president had total control of Congress, not now—so tardily—in an election year.

We need voters who value the priceless right we have to pick the leaders of our country, not as something to be sold to the highest bidder, but rather as a privilege to choose who will make America prosperous and great.  That is our great challenge in this election year.


[i]    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies

[ii]    http://dougsmith.ancients.info/worth.html

[iii]   http://www.roman-emperors.org/commod.htm

[iv]  Will Durrant, Caesar and Christ, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), 447

[v]   Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Emnpire, Abridged and Illustrated,  (New York: Gallery Books, 1979), 39.

[vi]    Id, 41-42.

[vii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donativum

[viii]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congiarium

Posted in Defending Freedom, Political Culture, Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , , ,

NABOTH’S VINEYARD

The Old Testament tells the story of Ahab and his wife Jezebel and how they got Naboth’s Vineyard.  (Ahab was the king of Northern Israel around 850 B.C.)  Naboth had the misfortune of having a vineyard next to the palace.  When Naboth turned down Ahab’s offer to buy the vineyard—refusing to sell because it was his family’s ancestral land—Ahab was so distraught that he lay down on his bed, looked away, and wouldn’t eat.  His wife, Queen Jezebel, asked, in effect, “Aren’t you king of Israel?” and promised to get Naboth’s vineyard.  Why should Naboth’s right to keep his property stand in the way of Ahab’s greed?

Jezebel sent instructions to the “elders and nobles” instructing them to hold a public meeting and to set Naboth in a high place.  Then they should get “two Children of Belial”— that is men who were personifications of evil[i] — to accuse Naboth of blasphemy.  Blasphemy was a capital offense in ancient Israel and two witnesses were required to convict.[ii]  The plan worked; the crowd was enraged by the accusations against Naboth; he was stoned to death; and at Jezebel’s behest Ahab got up and took the vineyard.  It is an illustrative story of a ruler ignoring property rights, turning public opinion against those who resisted his claims to their property, and the political success of using false accusations—even 2,800 years ago.[iii]

Rulers always want the property of others—sometimes merely for self-aggrandizement, often so that they can hand it out to their supporters to gain their loyalty.  In our day, it is common for those in power to use those in control (of the media) to find Children of Belial to demonize the intended victim so the rulers can take their property with impunity.  In our country rulers don’t actually take the money of others to deposit into their own bank accounts; they take it to hand out to voters who will re-elect them.  Don’t be fooled into seeing a difference where there is none: in Ahab’s day they simply plundered the property; today they call it taxes.  Plundering and taxes have the same effect—they both result in private property being taken by force from its legitimate owners.[iv]  It is done on a massive scale by the federal government.

Jezebel’s strategy only works if you pick the right accusation.  Jezebel’s choice of accusation against Naboth was brilliant.  She knew that blasphemy was so detested that it would inflame the passions of those present to carry out her selfish will.  Rulers, and those seeking to be rulers, do the same today.  They artfully choose accusations that will demonize those who oppose them.  These accusations are a crystal clear indication of what politicians—whose great talent is diagnosing exactly what will resonate with voters—believe will turn the electorate against their foes.  There is no point in making an accusation unless you expect it to work.

So what accusations do today’s politicians believe will be effective?  How do you get the country so upset that they will demand that the property of others be grabbed and given to the rulers for redistribution to the compliant crowd?  What about accusing today’s Naboths of not contributing their “Fair Share?”  Why should anyone be permitted to keep a vineyard when others want a “Fair Share” of it?  Of course in our day it is a particularly unjustifiable demand, when the Naboth’s of America (that is the wealthiest ten percent—measured by adjusted gross income) are already paying 70 of the income taxes.  If there is anyone not contributing a Fair Share, it is the fifty percent of Americans who pay almost no income taxes.[v]  But a false accusation worked so well for Jezebel 2,800 years ago, why not try it today?

[i]  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408a.htm

[ii]  Leviticus 24:16 and Deuteronomy 17:6

[iii] 1 Kings 21.  The story foretells a really bad ending for Ahab and Jezebel because God was very displeased.

[iv]  Admittedly plundering and taxes are different because taxes are imposed by a legislature elected by those taxed.  But see my posts of September 9, 2011 on “Representation without Taxation” and September 16, 2011 on “Compulsory Charity.”

[v]  http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Posted in Defending Freedom, Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment