A 20th Century Socialist Experiment

Kill it with fire

The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 80 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed. - Alan Keyes

 He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. - US Declaration of Independence, of George III

Bostonians lynching an English tax collector.

Mainstream news has been quiet about quite a lot of things that embarrass its masters lately.

Care particularly about the stuff they don’t talk about.

But care EVEN MORE about the stuff they blatantly lie about.

A story that may have escaped some or many of you (because it’s actually pretty tricky to find MSM stories about it with a quick search) is the almost-certain-to-fail-this -time House Republican bill that would abolish all federal income tax and the IRS, to replace it with a (proposed) 23% VAT.

How do I know this is something to pay attention to? Because basically every government mouthpiece blasting it on Twitter or in the few news stories I was able to find about it COMPLETELY OMIT the first part and only mention the VAT.

Last year a car dealership took $30,000 of my money and gave me a new truck.

So basically car dealerships mug people.

That’s how they’re doing this. It isn’t even a metaphor. (I’m also kidding; I haven’t bought a new vehicle in many years. I keep vehicles an average of 12 years, apparently.)

Most that are doing so are, at least on Twitter, getting blasted in the comments for leaving out the main clause of the sentence. Lots aren’t, especially in the carefully bowdlerized news stories, where the commentariat screams that the 23% VAT (which has now been raised to 30% in The Discourse because “that’s what it effectively is”) is going to bury poor people and destroy buying power. None of them, of course, point out that “the poors” would be getting a third of their income back and would only be taxed on money they spend.

Also, you guys, the rich will pay even less taxes now, because they’ll buy their mansions and fill their Rolls Royces (Rollses Royce? LMK) in the Caiman Islands where they can hide their money. And every time they buy Starbucks their lawyers will do fancy footwork to make it a nonprofit coffee or something!

Anyway, this is a bill being pushed by an apparent minority of Repubs in the House and is almost certainly going nowhere this time, but the fact that it is being so aggressively misrepresented to the point of stupidity makes me wonder if it scares some people.

I did some quick back-of-the-envelope math when I first read about this, because used envelopes are cheaper than buying note paper, and worked out that if I paid NO income tax and was only taxed on what I buy to the tune of 23%, I would save close to $10,000 a year. And if I hadn’t made it clear before, our family is decidedly NOT rich- several times during Husbandmouth’s unemployment we have fallen below what would technically be considered “middle class”- and I live very frugally.

Am I completely missing the major downside of such a change? Remember that prior to the 16th Amendment in 1913, income tax was considered unconstitutional. It was never envisioned as a fundamental right of government to simply claim people’s earnings. And the IRS’s current annual budget is around $14 billion, and is expected to rise dramatically in the next several years because assault rifles are expensive.

Tell me what disaster for the American middle class I’m missing here. And while you’re at it,