Once again, gentle reader, I am impelled to convey to you my view of the need to state some obvious truths. Truths obvious to me, but apparently beyond the ken of the American media, because I never hear them spoken.
I hear many complaints from all sides that the U.S. Tax Code is unfair. Those on the right think that taxes are too high. They are paying the lion's share, due to the progressive nature of the tax rates. Those on the left think taxes aren't high enough. The taxes they refer to are those paid by the rich, because the poor pay no tax at all. The arguments from both sides are couched in terms of what works. From the left, we also get calls for a moral imperative, that the rich should pay more because they have more, with the implication that such a system would be more “fair”, and thus, more moral. We normally hear no moral elements in the argument from the right, only that a rate too high is impractical, because it inhibits business growth and the economy. I want to change that.
The wealthy have apparently given up on trying to argue the moral reasons why a progressive tax rate is wrong. Perhaps that is because they feel guilt for not doing their Christian duty of giving to charity as much as they feel they should. Regardless of the reason or reasons they don't protest on moral, rather than practical grounds, unless they frame the argument as a moral one, no meaningful tax reform will be accomplished. Too many on the other side of belief have drunk the poisoned kool-aid, which is the Marxist indoctrination of the Public Education Monopoly.
America has had a progressive Federal tax structure ever since the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) was ratified in 1913. To be ratified, any Constitutional Amendment must have overwhelming public support. That support was gained by the proponents of the amendment by promises that the Income Tax would be very small, and that it would only ever apply to the super-rich. The general public saw the income tax as a measure to punish the rich for the excesses of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Too bad they forgot the fact that “two wrongs don't make a right”.
Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, asserts that we had a right, and even a duty, to become independent from a tyrant who was trampling on our God given rights. They assumed that there is a God, and that He grants us rights. If you believe in God, it follows that you believe in right and wrong. Early Americans were a religious people, and in the end they set up a government that was intended to govern rightly as well as successfully. That included protecting the dissenting minority, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity to all. The U.S. Constitution is nothing but a framework for a constitutional republican form of government. The authors believed that to be the best form for protecting our liberty for the future. The fact that we have let that be transformed into the present national democracy is not the fault of the writers of the Constitution, or the document itself, but rather of us, the voters who elected, over the years, those that strayed from Constitutional principles.
A progessive tax rate is based on the principles of socialism. “From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need”. The U.S. Constitution is based, on the other hand, on individual rights. That results in capitalism and the free market. Over the years, we have had an America that moved from a largely free market, to a government corporatism in the late 1800s and early 1900s that favored those who could afford to buy influence, to the present mixed system that allows corporatism, but seeks to moderate it with socialistic government programs. Those socialistic programs are based on the erroneous perception that socialistic principles are moral.
The American system has lasted two hundered and thirty five years. The socialist system, as embodied by the U.S.S.R., lasted seventy two years. The American system was designed to protect God given rights under a system of morally grounded laws that restrained men from excess and compelled them to govern morally, in line with God's law. The soviet system was designed to ensure equal rights and benifits to all, under a system designed and run by men, which denied the existence of God.
When you confront socialists with the reality of the failed U.S.S.R., what you usually hear in response is something like, “Socialism is the most perfect form of government, 'on paper', but human frailty makes it difficult to operate in 'pure' form.” They say that the past failures are the result of straying from “pure socialism”, rather than from any inherent flaw in the system. They promise to be better and purer socialists, and to guard against any abuses of the system when we implement it in America. They are basically asking us to “pass the bill in order to see what's in it”, and accept their arguments on faith.
I put my faith in God. God, through the Bible, tells us that all men are sinners, and not to be trusted. Our founding fathers took that to heart, and designed a government that would guard against the excesses of the human use of power by binding those who would govern with the chains of a Constitution, to prevent their blundering in the name of good intentions. Socialism has no such chains. Under socialism, government may do whatever it wishes to the people, under the guise of serving them. The elite cabal decides what is best for the people, and makes it so, or attempts to.
To a Christian, the system of government that “looks good on paper” is the Divine Right of Kings. What could possibly be better? An enlightened Christian man is chosen to be king. He governs as Christ would govern, and always has the best interests of his subjects at heart. He trains his son to carry on the same way, and the populace has an orderly, unending future of perfect government. What could possibly go wrong? Two words supply the answer: “Human Nature”. Power corrupts. Power corrupted the British monarchy and directly caused our American Revolution. Men said that the king should rule. Christians came to believe that God's will was otherwise.
If a system of government like the Divine Right of Kings that at least purported to hold the ruler to upholding Christian ideals became so corrupted, what hope is there for a system like socialism that denies the existence of God as a first principle? Even you atheists, can you really deny the positive moral influence of Judeo-Christian principles in the Constitution and American law in general?
The problem with America is Americans. We used try to be a religious and moral people. That's not true anymore. Far too many believe that they're too intelligent to believe in God. Far too many hold humanist, rather than Biblical principles, to be the ideal. They believe so because that's what they're taught by the schools, the government and the media. When, collectively, we finally realize that socialist principles, such as the progressive tax rate, embody the same morality as the lynch mob, and are nothing more than the majority ganging up on the wealthy minority to steal their property, and we reform our laws to conform to the real equality of Constitutional principles, we will have turned a corner toward restoring the honor of America. When the majority of American people once again want the opportunity to make it on their own, rather than to be taken care of by the government, we will have taken another step on the right path and toward liberty. To continue on our present path is to sell out our liberty and our childrens future to snake oil salesmen, in exchange for promises to do “what's best for us” in their, not God's view.
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” – Thomas Paine
“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” – Abraham Lincoln
“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it.” – Ronald Reagan