The subject of income taxes is a sensitive one in the United States. It seems like every day, Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on who should be paying what. The IRS tax code may be one of the most often revised documents on the face of the planet as those in power lobby to make changes in favor of whatever special interest groups or factions of Wall Street elite are demanding.
We the people are usually as divided on these tax laws as those fighting over them. It seems there is always a clear benefit to the upper class or lower class, yet the middle class is forgotten somewhere in between. Is this done by design or as a natural byproduct of government spending policies?
Before one can even delve into who is right or wrong on tax reform, it is important to first ask why we pay taxes at all. That may sound like a ridiculous question since no one living today remembers an America where they did not have to pay (legally, that is) something.
But when this country was founded, there was no income tax. That’s right, the IRS did not exist in 1776. It was not created until 1862. For nearly 100 years after our founding, the government found a way to operate within a budget that did not require the average citizen to subsidize it. Imagine if our current leaders could accomplish anything close to this feat!
This is not to say that taxes are unconstitutional. The United States Constitution expressly addresses taxation. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the "Taxing and Spending Clause"), specifies Congress's power to impose "Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises."
You might be asking yourself what the point of this argument is then. But that becomes clear when you read further along in Section 8, where it requires that, "Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
It is well-known that the wording in the Constitution is often ambiguous, and rightfully so in light of how times change. But the word uniform begs the question of how we can have a system where tax brackets vary wildly based on income levels with more loopholes than a hangman’s gallows after the US-Dakota War of 1862. More disturbing than even the latitude provided, there is the line that reads, “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Let’s break those two items down, starting with the common defense of the United States, another gray area. What constitutes a defense of the country? Most would likely agree that certain wars were worthy of this title, namely the War of 1812 and World War 2. In both of these conflicts, there was a direct threat to the American way of life. The first proposed income tax was during the War of 1812, but it never passed. It was not until the American Civil War did we see the Revenue Act of 1861 take root. But even this would only be a short-lived necessity ultimately repealed when no longer necessary.
The first permanent income tax laws were implemented in 1913, a full four years before the United States passed a 250 million dollar Arms Appropriation Bill in 1917 to prepare for entry into World War 1 and one year before there was even a war to speak of. During the thick of our involvement, the top federal income tax bracket hit 77%. In World War 2, the top tax bracket ranged from 75% - 94%, and The Korean War saw that rate hover at 92%.
Were all of these wars, as well as numerous others we will not cite here, truly in defense of the United States? Less than twenty years of America's 245-year existence have been free from some form of war or armed conflict. Might we be slightly less belligerent if the Constitution did not contain a funding clause that made it profitable?
But why would the government want to take our money to fight wars?
War provides a variety of ways for big money to be made. The saying, “To the victor goes the spoils,” exists for this reason. Natural resources can provide enough motivation in certain cases. Then there is the angle of controlling trade policy and tariffs on the losing side. The profitability of the companies operating in the defense sector, many of which are owned directly or indirectly by politicians, their families, and donors, is arguably one of the most significant benefits.
So, where else do our tax dollars go? A significant amount is sent overseas in the form of foreign aid. In 2019, our government sent 47 billion dollars to other countries while people are starving and homeless at home. Of that figure, 35% went to these ten countries:
1. Afghanistan ($4.89 billion)
2. Israel ($3.3 billion)
3. Jordan ($1.72 billion)
4. Egypt ($1.46 billion)
5. Iraq ($960 million)
6. Ethiopia ($922 million)
7. Yemen ($809 million)
8. Colombia ($800 million)
9. Nigeria ($793 million)
10. Lebanon ($790 million)
This expenditure would appear to be in stark contrast to the Constitutional wording that allows for taxation. There can be no argument made for how giving any of these countries money contributes to the defense of our country. Whatever argument for these funds helping to fight terrorism is shallow at best. Once the funds are transferred, there is no way of guaranteeing how it is spent and it is foolish to think otherwise.
Then we have the “pay the debts” portion of the wording. This is a rather broad use authorization without much oversight. Imagine giving someone with a gambling addiction access to an infinite amount of cash to pay their debts. There would be no incentive for them to stop gambling. The same is true for the government. If taxpayer money is going to be used to pay debts, should we not have a voice in whether or not to incur those debts in the first place?
It is also important to note that all these arguments only pertain to income tax at the federal level. Prior to 1911, there was no such thing as state income tax. The Revenue Act of 1916 implemented the first estate tax to allow the government to profit from the death of wealthy citizens.
In 1921 West Virginia became the first state to institute sales tax, opening the door for many others to follow suit. Then in 1932, the first federal tax on gasoline was imposed nationwide. Fast forward to 1991 where the “yacht tax” on certain luxury goods was enacted to help pay down the federal deficit.
All of the taxes mentioned above do not even account for the additional taxes paid by those who want to fulfill the American dream of homeownership. Thanks to city and county property taxes in most states, you can never truly “own” your own home. Even after the mortgage is paid off, you are ultimately forced to “lease” the land from the municipality in perpetuity. That means you could spend thirty-plus years paying the mortgage, taxes, and insurance only to have it all taken away if you are no longer able to keep up with the property taxes.
No one ever said freedom was free, but they also never explained just how expensive it really is for most.
Suala la kodi ya mapato ni jambo lenye kuumiza sana nchini Marekani. "Imeonekana kila siku, wanademokrasia na wa-Republican hawawezi kukubaliana juu ya nani anapaswa kulipa nini.""" "Kodesi ya kodi ya IRS inaweza kuwa moja ya hati zilizorekebishwa mara nyingi zaidi kwenye uso wa sayari kama wale katika nguvu ya lobby kufanya mabadiliko kwa neema ya ""vikundi vya maslahi maalum"" au vikundi vya wasomi wa Wall Street." Kwa kawaida sisi watu tumegawanyika juu ya sheria hizi za kodi kama wale wanaopigana juu yao. Inaonekana kuna faida ya wazi kwa tabaka la juu au tabaka la chini, lakini tabaka la kati limesahaulika mahali fulani kati. Je, hilo ni jambo la kimakusudi au ni jambo la kawaida linalotokana na sera za matumizi ya serikali? Kabla mtu hawezi hata kuchunguza ni nani aliye sahihi au asiye sahihi juu ya mageuzi ya kodi, ni muhimu kwanza kuuliza kwa nini sisi kulipa kodi wakati wote. Hilo linaweza kuonekana kuwa swali lisilo la kweli, kwa kuwa hakuna mtu aliye hai leo anayekumbuka Amerika ambapo hakuwa na kulipa (kisheria, yaani) kitu. Lakini wakati nchi hii ilipoanzishwa, hakukuwa na kodi ya mapato. "Hiyo ni kwa sababu IRS haikuwapo mwaka 1776.""" Haikuanzishwa hadi 1862. Kwa karibu miaka 100 baada ya kuanzishwa kwetu, serikali ilipata njia ya kufanya kazi ndani ya bajeti ambayo haikuhitaji raia wa kawaida kuifadhili. Hebu wazia kama viongozi wetu wa sasa wangeweza kutimiza jambo lolote linalofanana na hilo! Hilo halimaanishi kwamba kodi ni kinyume cha katiba. Katiba ya Marekani inazungumzia waziwazi kodi. "Kifungu cha 8 cha Sheria ya Sheria ya Marekani, kifungu cha 1 (Masharti ya Ushuru na Matumizi) kinaelezea mamlaka ya Bunge la Marekani ya kuweka ""kodi, ushuru, ushuru, na ushuru.""" Unaweza kuwa unajiuliza ni nini maana ya hoja hii. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya sheria ya Marekani ya kifungu cha 8 ambayo inasema: ""Duti, Impositions, na Excise lazima kuwa sawa katika Marekani.""" Ni jambo la kawaida kwamba maneno ya katiba mara nyingi huwa na utata, na kwa haki hivyo kwa kuzingatia jinsi nyakati zinavyobadilika. "Kwa hivyo, ""uniform"" inamaanisha ""kifuniko cha kulipa kodi"" na ""kifuniko cha kulipa kodi"" ni sawa na ""kiti cha kunyongwa"" cha mlinzi wa sheria ya Dakota ya 1862."" "Kichekesha zaidi kuliko hata latitudo iliyotolewa, kuna mstari unaosoma, ""kulipa madeni na kutoa ulinzi wa kawaida na ustawi wa jumla wa Marekani,"" hebu tuvunje vitu hivyo viwili chini, kuanzia na ulinzi wa kawaida wa Marekani, eneo jingine la kijivu." Ni nini kinachohusisha ulinzi wa nchi? "Watu wengi wanakubaliana kwamba vita fulani zilikuwa na ""maarufu"" kama vile Vita vya 1812 na Vita vya Pili vya Ulimwengu." Katika mapigano hayo mawili, kulikuwa na tisho la moja kwa moja kwa njia ya maisha ya Wamarekani. Sheria ya kodi ya mapato ilitolewa wakati wa vita vya 1812 lakini haikuweza kupitishwa. Baada ya vita vya wenyewe kwa wenyewe, sheria ya mapato ya mwaka 1861 ilianza kutumika. Lakini hata hii ingekuwa tu uhitaji wa muda mfupi hatimaye kuondolewa wakati si muhimu tena. Sheria ya kwanza ya kodi ya mapato ya kudumu ilianzishwa mwaka 1913, miaka minne kamili kabla ya Marekani kupitisha Muswada wa Utoaji wa Silaha wa dola milioni 250 mwaka 1917 ili kuandaa kuingia katika Vita Kuu ya Kwanza ya Dunia, na mwaka mmoja kabla ya vita hata kuongea. Wakati wa uhamisho wa serikali, kiwango cha juu cha kodi ya mapato ya shirikisho kilikuwa 77%. Katika Vita Kuu ya Pili ya Dunia, kiwango cha juu cha kodi kilikuwa kati ya asilimia 75 hadi 94 na katika Vita vya Korea, kiwango hicho kilikuwa asilimia 92. Je, vita vyote hivi, pamoja na vingine vingi ambavyo hatutaorodhesha hapa, vilikuwa kwa kweli kwa ajili ya kulinda Marekani? Katika miaka isiyopungua ishirini ya kuwepo kwa Marekani kwa miaka 245, haijawahi kuwa na aina yoyote ya vita au mapigano ya silaha. Je, tunaweza kuwa na uhasama kidogo ikiwa Katiba haingekuwa na kifungu cha ufadhili ambacho kilifanya iwe na faida? Lakini kwa nini serikali itake kuchukua pesa zetu ili kupigana vita? Vita hutoa njia mbalimbali za kupata pesa nyingi. Mithali, "Kwa mshindi huenda nyara", ipo kwa sababu hii. Rasilimali za asili zaweza kutoa kichocheo cha kutosha katika visa fulani. Kisha kuna pembe ya kudhibiti sera ya biashara na ushuru kwa upande wa kushindwa. "Kufanikiwa kwa makampuni yanayofanya kazi katika sekta ya ulinzi, ambayo mengi ni inayomilikiwa moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja na wanasiasa, familia zao, na wafadhili, ni moja ya faida muhimu zaidi. """ Kwa hiyo, fedha zetu za kodi zinaenda wapi pengine? Kiasi kikubwa hutumwa nje ya nchi katika namna ya misaada ya kigeni. """Nchi yetu ilituma dola bilioni 47 kwa nchi nyingine wakati watu wanakosa makazi na njaa." Kati ya idadi hiyo, asilimia 35 ilitolewa kwa nchi kumi zifuatazo: Afghanistan (bilioni 4.89) Israel (bilioni 3.3) Jordan (bilioni 1.72 bilioni) Misri (bilioni 1.46). Iraq (mamilioni ya dola milioni 960) Ethiopia (mashariki mwa Afrika) $ 9.2 bilioni Yemen (mamilioni ya dola 809) Colombia (mamilioni ya dola 800) Nigeria (mamilioni ya dola 793) Lebanon (dola milioni 790) gharama hii inaonekana kuwa kinyume kabisa na maneno ya kikatiba ambayo inaruhusu ushuru. Hakuna hoja inayoweza kufanywa kwa jinsi kutoa fedha kwa nchi hizi zinavyochangia ulinzi wa nchi yetu. Hoja yoyote kwa ajili ya fedha hizi kusaidia kupambana na ugaidi ni ya kina kirefu katika hali bora. Mara fedha zinapohamishwa, hakuna njia ya kuhakikisha jinsi zinatumiwa na ni upumbavu kufikiri vinginevyo. Kisha tuna sehemu ya "kulipa madeni" ya maneno hayo. Hii ni idhini ya matumizi ya kina badala bila usimamizi mwingi. Fikiria mtu mwenye uraibu wa kucheza kamari akipata pesa nyingi sana ili kulipa madeni yake. Hawangekuwa na kichocheo cha kuacha kucheza kamari. Jambo hilohilo laweza kusemwa kuhusu serikali. Kama fedha za walipa kodi zitatumiwa kulipa madeni, je, hatupaswi kuwa na sauti juu ya kama au si kuanzisha madeni hayo katika nafasi ya kwanza? Pia ni muhimu kutambua kwamba hoja hizi zote zinahusu tu kodi ya mapato katika ngazi ya shirikisho. Kabla ya mwaka 1911, hakuna kodi ya mapato ya serikali. Sheria ya Mapato ya 1916 ilianzisha kodi ya kwanza ya mali isiyohamishika ili kuruhusu serikali kupata faida kutokana na kifo cha raia tajiri. Mwaka 1921 Virginia Magharibi ikawa jimbo la kwanza kuanzisha kodi ya mauzo, na kufungua mlango kwa wengine wengi kufuata mfano. Mwaka 1932 walianzisha kodi ya kwanza ya mafuta nchini Marekani. Mwaka 1991 walianzisha kodi ya yacht kwa bidhaa fulani za kifahari ili kusaidia kulipa chini ya upungufu wa serikali. Kodi zote zilizotajwa hapo juu hazijumuishi hata kodi za ziada zinazolipwa na wale wanaotaka kutimiza ndoto ya Marekani ya kuwa na nyumba. Shukrani kwa kodi ya mali ya jiji na kaunti katika majimbo mengi, huwezi kamwe "kuwa" mwenye nyumba yako mwenyewe. Hata baada ya mkopo wa nyumba kulipwa, wewe ni hatimaye kulazimika "kukodisha" ardhi kutoka manispaa kwa milele. Hii inamaanisha kwamba unaweza kutumia zaidi ya miaka 30 kulipa mkopo wa nyumba, kodi, na bima tu ili uondoe yote ikiwa huwezi tena kushikilia kodi ya mali. Hakuna aliyewahi kusema uhuru ni bure, lakini pia hawajawahi kueleza ni ghali kiasi gani kwa wengi.