On Behalf of the “Tea Bag Brigades”: A Proposal

Last Wednesday, in hundreds of “tea party” demonstrations from sea to shining sea, the word was proclaimed: “Taxation (with or without representation) is tyranny!”

The People (well, maybe a small fraction of one percent of them) have spoken, however confused and inchoate the message.

And so, in response, I have a simple proposal: let’s make all tax payments voluntary.

Grover Norquist of “Americans for Tax Reform” proclaims that he wants to “drown government in the bathtub,” by which he must mean abolish government services. What gives government the right, we are often asked, to seize our property through taxation? “It’s your money!” Bob Dole shouted. And George Bush repeatedly asked, “who is better qualified to spend your money? You, or the government?” To the libertarian-right, tax payments for any purpose other then the protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property, is theft. (More on the “qualification” of the government to “spend your money” here).

No one likes to pay taxes. But for that matter, no one likes to pay the mortgage on one’s house, utility bills, or car payments. However, we all understand that if we do not make these payments, we will be evicted from our homes, or the electricity will be shut off, or our cars will be repossessed – and justly so.

So here is my proposal: make all tax payments voluntary. If all those April 15 “tea party” tax protesters find tax-paying so onerous, then they should be excused from paying taxes.

The only provision is that if they do so, they are no longer entitled to the services that are supported by taxes.

To wit:

  • They may no longer use the public highways.
  • In case of fire, they can not call the fire department to save their homes.
  • In case of home invasion, armed robbery or other criminal threats, they can not call the police for help.
  • They can not sue for damages in court. (Judges, bailiffs, court reporters, etc. are on the public payroll).
  • They can not hire workers that were educated in public schools or universities.
  • They can not use computers (micro-circuitry developed by NASA) or the internet (originated in DARPA, a federal agency).
  • They can no longer purchase prescription drugs (certified safe and effective by the FDA).
  • They can no longer purchase meat and dairy products that have been inspected by the Dept. Of Agriculture.
  • They can not visit the National Parks or National Forests.
  • They can not purchase airline tickets, (since that industry is regulated by the FAA) or use public airports.
  • Their bank accounts may not be protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
  • For that matter, they cannot use United States currency, since it is guaranteed by the Federal Government. Instead, they will have to conduct all transactions by barter.

And that’s just the beginning of a long list.

Any takers?

Of course, it will be impossible to deprive the tax protesters of all government services – in some cases they will, of necessity, be “free riders.” For example, the air they breathe will be cleaner due to the enforcement of clean air standards, paid for by other citizens. Similarly, they will be safer from foreign invasion thanks to a military paid for by others.

All free-loading tax protesters who are caught using the above listed services, will be assessed charges. In other words, they will be required to pay their taxes.

Which kinda leaves things pretty much where they were to begin with, doesn’t it?

Politicians like Bob Dole and George Bush, and the FAUX News screech-merchants keep telling us that taxes are “your money!” – in other words, that we are entitled to keep it. Activists such as Grover Norquist and his “American for Tax Reform” demand that taxes be cut, and cut, and cut again, until, as Norquist puts it, government is reduced to the size where we can “drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” which I take to mean, eliminate government. All this, notwithstanding the obvious and manifest public benefits that are “purchased” by tax revenues.

And yet, somehow, this subversive nonsense strikes a responsive chord among our fellow citizens. Why is this?

To be sure, many citizens are not opposed to paying their taxes, per se. Their complaint is that so much of their tax assessment is lost to waste, fraud and abuse. But this complaint is legitimately voiced by all citizens, regardless of political persuasion – right, left, and center. Everyone, that is, except those scoundrels who benefit from that waste, fraud and abuse. The solution, however, is not to abolish taxes — not, that is, if the above listed services are to be supported. The answer is improved law enforcement and harsh penalties. Put bluntly, where there is waste, fraud and abuse, we should root it out and then nail the bastards – including Dick Cheney’s pals at Halliburton and other “contractors” who seem to have “lost”a few billions of “our” money in Iraq.

The more outrageous injustice in our tax system is the unfair distribution of the tax burden: a tax structure that allows the mega-billionaire to pay a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary or his house keeper. The traditional principle of tax assessment is that it be based upon the ability to pay. It is self-evidently true that the value of a constant sum of money, say a thousand dollars, is far greater to a poor person than to a wealthy person. If a Wal Mart clerk loses a grand, she and her children will go without food for several days. If Bill Gates loses that amount, it is of no consequence whatever to him. Hence the graduated income tax rates, and the inherent injustice of Steve Forbes’ “flat tax.” Similarly, the wealthy individual’s income from investments should not be taxed less than the poor workers’ salaried income. And yet, more and more, the tax burden is shifting away from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. This is legitimate reason for complaint and reform. But meanwhile, those aforementioned public services must be paid for.

Even so, there is in this country a tradition of the clever and resourceful tax evader as some sort of a hero. Ronald Reagan said as much in 1985 as he all but advocated rebellion against the very government over which he presided:

The members who spoke in this capital [Williamsburg, Virginia] said ‘no’ to taxes because they loved freedom. They argued, “why should the fruits of our labors go to the crown across the sea.” Well, in the same sense we ask today, “why should the fruits of our labors go to that capital across the [Potomac] river?” . . . . We, like the patriots of yesterday, are struggling to increase the measure of liberty enjoyed by our fellow citizens. We’re struggling, like them, for self-government — self-government for the family, self-government for the individual and the small business, and the corporation… What people earn is their money. Seventy-two years after its inception, what is our Federal tax system? It is a system that yields great amounts of revenue, even greater amounts of disorder, discontent and disobedience. [Tax cheating] is not considered bad behavior. After all, goes this thinking, what’s wrong with cheating a system that is itself a cheat? That isn’t a sin, it’s a duty! (Transcribed from a tape of Reagan’s speech, NPR, May 30, 1985)

This was a message that was repeated throughout the realm in the astroturf “tea parties” on Wednesday.

And so, by hiring a coterie of skillful accountants and lawyers to seek out loopholes, or by setting up phony off-shore corporations, the enterprising tax evader is admired by many for striking a blow against the despised and unworthy “big government.” In fact, he is transferring his tax burden to the rest of us, the honest taxpayers. Somehow, too many of us seem to forget as he evades his tax responsibility, legally or otherwise, he continues to take advantages of the services paid for by the rest of us: the roads and bridges, the protection of his property and person by the police and fire departments, the knowledge and skill of his workers, most of whom were educated at public expense. Some hero!

Pause for a moment and reflect upon what you are paying for with the federal income tax that your filed before Wednesday, along with the property and sales taxes that you pay to your state and community: the roads, schools, public safety, safe food and drugs, secure investments, parks and museums, clean air and water, and so much more. And if you are annoyed by your tax burden, direct your anger, not at the government which provides these services, but at the tax cheats and the politicians who write the tax laws that benefit their “sponsors”– their campaign contributors.

“Government” is not the culprit – “the problem,” as Ronald Reagan put it. The authentic villains are the free-loaders who “purchase” the tax loopholes and the sweetheart government contracts through their political “contributions,” and who thus leave it to the rest us to pay for the vital public services of which all of us, honest and dishonest alike, are the beneficiaries. Included among the villains are demagogues of the right-wing media who incite masses of gullible “sheeple” to protest against their own self-interest, and against their democratically elected leaders.

Are you “mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore”? Then don’t simply act angry. In addition, act smart. Don’t blindly demand the abolition of taxes. Public services, supported by taxes, are both desirable and, in many cases, indispensable. Instead, demand tax justice, and insist that public officials either get with the reform program or step aside and be replaced by those who will.

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin and is the co-editor of The Crisis Papers. His e-mail is: gadfly@igc.org. Read other articles by Ernest, or visit Ernest's website.

25 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Don Hawkins said on April 18th, 2009 at 10:18am #

    Good one.

  2. Michael Kenny said on April 18th, 2009 at 10:21am #

    There is a silver lining to all of this (if you’ll pardon the pun!). Pressure to keep down taxes will reduce the revenue available to Obama, forcing him to cut expenditure. In other words, he won’t be able to fund his domestic programmes without reducing expenditure on foreign adventures. But if he can’t revive the US economy and then re-assert US hegemony in the world (which the revival of the economy won’t automatically do), he won’t be able to continue the foreign adventures anyway. Rememer the old song about “there’s a hole in the bucket …”?

  3. E-Liz said on April 18th, 2009 at 2:07pm #

    Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    OK Asshole Show me where any of that Silly Ass list of yours is established in section 8, I do not mind paying taxes for things actually listed in the constitution but where in the hell does it say that they have to pay for national parks and to inspect meat.

  4. Kaelieh said on April 18th, 2009 at 2:58pm #

    When did the left stop being classic liberals? Did the Thomas Jeffersons, the James Madisons, the Patrick Henrys and the John Lockes just drop off the face of the earth after the War Between the States?

    Something that truly baffles me is why people are being so critical and borderline cruel to people who were engaged in the tea parties. They don’t like what’s going on, they don’t agree, why do we keep hearing people call their dissent astroturf? Deargod, imagine how we’d feel if the situation was still reversed.

    Lay off, they’re not happy let them express that in peace. Stop being so hypocritical [everyone from alternet to MSNBC] and degrading them. They have every right to complain.

    A thought about taxation, this may not have been actively voiced at the parties, but I don’t out rightly blame anyone for not reading John Locke, he’s easier than most but philosophers (myself included) aren’t exactly the most accessible writers.

    Being able to reject paying taxes is the only way we have to withdraw our consent from the governing. Direct taxation, taken from our paychecks before they are dispensed doesn’t allow for this. Whereas, if excise taxes and tariffs, to name a few, do. Many people consider taxation theft, I dare say direct taxation on our labour is slavery.

    The tea parties are rejecting taxes levied by the federal government, hence why they were “from sea to shining sea.” No one was ‘whining’ about their state taxes. Most of the services the Partridge listed are federal, but these are not:

    # They may no longer use the public highways. (I recognize that this bulletin is a more complicated issue than the others listed below.
    # In case of fire, they can not call the fire department to save their homes.
    # In case of home invasion, armed robbery or other criminal threats, they can not call the police for help.
    # They can not sue for damages in court. (Judges, bailiffs, court reporters, etc. are on the public payroll).
    # They can not hire workers that were educated in public schools or universities.

    To say that the tea parties were just about paying taxes shows complete ignorance over the issue. They were protesting how their tax dollars are being spent, not having to pay them in and of itself. Some are tired of having to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Most are furious about how much of their tax dollars go to just paying the interest on the national debt. Everyone is pissed about seeing their tax dollars going to Wall St and the banks. Don’t just blindly assume that the protesters just don’t want to pay taxes anymore.

    “Instead, demand tax justice, and insist that public officials either get with the reform program or step aside and be replaced by those who will.”

    How? By elections? Yeah, sure. That’s just been working out great.

  5. Deadbeat said on April 18th, 2009 at 4:20pm #

    Kaelieh writes…

    To say that the tea parties were just about paying taxes shows complete ignorance over the issue. They were protesting how their tax dollars are being spent, not having to pay them in and of itself. Some are tired of having to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Most are furious about how much of their tax dollars go to just paying the interest on the national debt. Everyone is pissed about seeing their tax dollars going to Wall St and the banks. Don’t just blindly assume that the protesters just don’t want to pay taxes anymore.

    What Kaelieh misses are the reasons for the specious aspects of the Tea Party. Part of the problem was how Fox News and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) involvement with the Tea Party. Fox News hope to use this sentiment to reinvigorate the Republican Party constituency. The AEI was the think tank that promoted “trickle-down” economics and ideology that has created much of the economic conditions that has help move wealth to the rich and created the massive deficits and thus interest on the debt.

    The anger towards “spending” is also specious since many of people who featured in the “Tea Party” benefited from government “spending” as “spending” for social programs were slashed over the past 30 years.

    The problem with the “Tea Party” is that it is missing a programmatic solution other than “cut spending”. At best that too vague and lack any systemic analysis about military spending and capitalism in general.

    The “Ron Paul” faction tends to blame “entitlement” spending however if “entitlement” spending was cut that would make the situation WORST for working people. Entitlement spending contributed NOTHING to the deficit and debt. In fact entitlement spending LOWERS the debt because it was included on the budget in order to UNDERSTATE government spending on WAR.

    Unfortunately the “Tea Party” mentality will only bring DEEPEN and WORSEN the economic situation for working people. Thus the “Tea Party” participants are at best misguided and at worst a front for the RIGHT.

    This is the results of a divided and practically irrelevant Left. It is especially confound to see those professing to be on the Left ridiculing and dismissing Marx. Thankfully however we see that younger people are picking up an interest and hopefully as time goes on we’ll see deeper analysis of the failure of Capitalism and thus the emergence of truly equable alternative to Capitalism.

  6. TrainRider said on April 18th, 2009 at 4:44pm #

    E-Liz, Section 7 and the statement “general Welfare of the United States” of section 8. I believe these answer the “Silly Ass list” question of yours. Mr. Partridge barely scratched the surface of services provided and technologies supported by the nasty Federal Government and I can guarantee that you use your fair share just like the rest of us. Now back to Faux News and get your fill of Hannity and O’Reilly.

  7. lichen said on April 18th, 2009 at 4:54pm #

    I love taxes, and yes, we need a progressive tax system in which the IRS is fully staffed and funded to the point where they can catch the rich-bitch tax evaders, offshorers, and scammers; and then wealth in general and all uses of the status ‘corporation’ must be heavily taxed. If you’ve used public schools and all the other services listed above for your whole life (i.e. even as a minor when you paid no taxes yourself,) then you are indebted to the next generation to pay for them to have the services that you did, so you will pay and damned if I’m going to let your ignorant ass take away my public libraries, parks, and the base level of social services that still remain in this country!

    Corporatism is tyranny!

  8. E-Liz said on April 18th, 2009 at 7:06pm #

    The problem with the “Tea Party” is that it is missing a programmatic solution other than “cut spending”. At best that too vague and lack any systemic analysis about military spending and capitalism in general.

    sounds like the same problem with voting democrat.

  9. Deadbeat said on April 18th, 2009 at 8:44pm #

    E-Liz writes

    sounds like the same problem with voting democrat.

    Very true. The problem is that the public still hasn’t come to the conclusion that elections do not fundamentally change the political economy. When the public comes to that conclusion they’ll either seek or become THE alternative. Unfortunately the “Left” hasn’t provided an alternative to the Democrats. They’ve been too busy retarding solidarity among workers.

  10. beverly said on April 19th, 2009 at 10:15am #

    Spot on commentary Ernest!!!!!

    Pay no attention to the right wing harangues about big government and taxes. Shrink government down to size that it can be drowned in a bathtub? Yeah, right. If govt shrinks, so do a shitload of well-paying jobs and fat govt contracts in Washington and elsewhere that go to Reagan, Bush, Norquist, et al cronies and family members.

  11. Max Shields said on April 19th, 2009 at 10:50am #

    The role of government needs attention in public debate; but I’d start first with the role of public/private. A clear vision of that distinction makes what a government is and needs to be and at what point government is too big or not.

    Government size needs context; and that’s been missing since FDR. It is not what government DOES for people, it is what needs to be in the public or common domain and thus transparent. A non-transparent government is as bad (perhaps worse) than simply privatizing the commons.

    Understanding what needs to be IN the commons, what serves the common “good” and thus is prone to monopolization is key. Whatever needs are apt to be monopolized through privatization must be in the public domain in the truest sense of that word public – transparent.

    A small set of examples are healthcare, transportation, airwaves, all natural resource use (energy, land, water, etc.), and access. Government is built around this concept of common ownership. Otherwise you can end up with an intolerable oligarchic government the size of the planet or as small as “central control”. Size needs to be put in context.

  12. Max Shields said on April 19th, 2009 at 11:26am #

    To the above I would add that the US government has lost much of its reason for being in any democratic sense. It has become a government of, for and by corporate owners (and a few special interests that are not corporate). The laws and treaties over the last several decades are shaped more by that concentrated and private elite power than by the common good.

    When a government refuses to prosecute criminal acts, as the Obama administration’s DoJ (at his agreement) than all else is rendered null and void. Exceptions of this sort make hypocracy, greed, and elite power over the common good the rule of the land.

    Such a government is really what the Founders seemed to be saying when they indicated overthrowing the status quo. It has become illegitimate.

  13. lichen said on April 19th, 2009 at 1:39pm #

    Yes, these reactionary anti-tax people can’t understand that a government can be bottom-up, predicated by pure, direct, decentralized democracy whereby it is made sure that public resources are used for the public good. No, they are against democracy as much as they are ‘big government’ and see the only solution in big corporations taking over by way of the failed for-profit and privatization models. The problem with wages, further, is not that taxes are being extracted from them, it is that insufficient democracy has meant we don’t have full employment with everyone receiving a living wage. Radical corporatism would not improve this by releiving taxes; it would bring slavery back to america, in a big way.

  14. Max Shields said on April 19th, 2009 at 7:10pm #

    While this may sound heretical, I think it is wrong to tax earned income.
    And earned income can be easily identified and defined.

    Much of what we call “wealth” is not earned; and produces little to no value. Such income (unearned) is immoral and exploitive. I would look for other means to eliminate it rather than tax it.

    But there is something inherently wrong with the idea of taxing earned income. Why should someone work and after putting in time, energy and all whatever personal investment be taxed on it?

    The case for a rent on land (resource usage) is strong. Many economists have stated that such a rent would provide the best means to ensure distribution and access to the sources of wealth, would pay for most, if not all, social services, infrastructure and education. As such it would eliminate the need to penalize general purchases (sales tax) and against one’s income. The latter has been sold as progressive. The problem with income is that it is elastic which means that it can be hidden (usually by those with the means to do it) and the most wealthy rarely pay much even after innumerable efforts to “plug” loop holes for as many reasons that there are loop holes. Sales taxes generally either hurt poor people or are so erratic (requiring discretionary spending that dissipates during economic downturns).

    Land is non-elastic, is the most progressive of any “tax” and since humans do not make land, land value is the most stable and limited revenue sources. This is very important when understanding economic justice. Land, the air, water is not owned by anyone. To be a good steward of land, a rent on it’s use would make it both accessible to all, put it in the public domain and capture community wealth for a stable human-scaled economy.

  15. Tennessee-Chavizta said on April 19th, 2009 at 7:15pm #

    BEWARE OF THE ULTRA-RIGHT WING EXTREMIST TERRORIST MOVEMENT IN U.S.A. !!

    Hello all: We are in a very delicate, dangerous and economic-unstable times which kills reason in many US citizens. I know that Obama is a corporate puppet, and that the Democrat Party is a capitalist-party. However, people should not support extremists, radical far-right movements as the solution for our problems.

    Even a far-right wing TN Nazi Republican Party congressmen wants to pass a resolution to ban socialism in TN, and in USA.

    I mean, what the f*ck is going on in the United States of America? are people losing their minds or something?

    When you hear that a US Congress lawmaker wants to ban socialism in USA, you know that something smells fishy. And that americans should wake up and smell the spectre of nazism and fascism alive in America.

    http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10188368

    Tennessee is a dumb, fat and fascist state, full of dumb, fat and fascist people even TN congress people are real dumb.

    A TN Republican Party lawmaker wants a law to ban socialism in TN. (What a f*cking asshole)

    .

  16. Deadbeat said on April 19th, 2009 at 10:47pm #

    Max Shields writes…

    While this may sound heretical, I think it is wrong to tax earned income. And earned income can be easily identified and defined.

    Actually I agree and this is not heretical although I believe there needs to be a cap on income. Nader’s plan to impose a “sales tax” on stock transaction and to eliminate all income taxes on everyone making less than $100,000.00 is an excellent idea. What a maximum wage does is forces income to spread out and become evenly distributed rather than become concentrated.

    Much of what we call “wealth” is not earned; and produces little to no value. Such income (unearned) is immoral and exploitive. I would look for other means to eliminate it rather than tax it.

    I wholeheartedly agree. In fact at one time unearned income were taxed at higher rates than labor income. That started to change in 1978 when the head of the Finance Committed, the Democratic Lloyd Bensten and signed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, lowered capital gains tax rates.

    But there is something inherently wrong with the idea of taxing earned income. Why should someone work and after putting in time, energy and all whatever personal investment be taxed on it?

    The problem here is that you have people like bankers, lawyers, insurance agents, and real estate agents all working in the non-productive FIRE sectors that has been allowed to balloon during the past 30 years while their brethrens in manufacturing were extremely exploited. These fire sector “workers” did “labour” but the problem is this sector is highly rewarded for non-production. You’ll have a problem Max making the argument that this income should not be taxed as their activity produced nothing but inflated assets and dislocation.

    The case for a rent on land (resource usage) is strong. Many economists have stated that such a rent would provide the best means to ensure distribution and access to the sources of wealth, would pay for most, if not all, social services, infrastructure and education.

    My argument is that your advocacy doesn’t of far enough to tax activity and behavior where wealth can be extracted with land use. I agree with your advocacy of that land is a common resource. But the fire sector is NOT the largest consumer of land. They have unfortunately use their control of money and use that money to have laws written and regulation eliminated that allowed them to get rich on inflating asset prices. My point is that a land tax won’t capture that activity. It would have missed much of the growth of FIRE sector which when onto to control much of the politicians and thus the government itself.

    As such [the land/resource usage tax] would eliminate the need to penalize general purchases (sales tax) and against one’s income.

    Your assertion is based solely on an assumption. Perhaps there will be enough money collected but so would a progressive income tax. But what your assumption misses the real reason why governments rely on regressive sales and labor taxes — POWER. The workers have failed to exercise POWER to make taxes more progressive.

    [Income taxes] has been sold as progressive. The problem with income is that it is elastic which means that it can be hidden (usually by those with the means to do it) and the most wealthy rarely pay much even after innumerable efforts to “plug” loop holes for as many reasons that there are loop holes. Sales taxes generally either hurt poor people or are so erratic (requiring discretionary spending that dissipates during economic downturns).

    I agree but then Max you fail to point out that income taxes WERE more progressive in the 1950’s when the top rate was 92%. States had to rely more heavily on sales taxes as revenue share was diminished and as taxes have been made more regressive during the past 30 years. Even your land/resource tax can be structured to be regressive if you lack the solidarity and power to make it progressive.

    Land is non-elastic, is the most progressive of any “tax” and since humans do not make land, land value is the most stable and limited revenue sources. This is very important when understanding economic justice. Land, the air, water is not owned by anyone. To be a good steward of land, a rent on it’s use would make it both accessible to all, put it in the public domain and capture community wealth for a stable human-scaled economy.

    Much of what you say Max is true. I agree with you that land, water and air should be free and shared by all. Unfortunately Max your solution still doesn’t address EXPLOITATION at the point of production which is why the United States is in its current predicament. The exploitation of the working class shifted their wealth into the banks only to have the banks lend the money back to hapless workers in order to achieve the “American Dream” at exorbitant rates and fees. Notice that Obama has no intention of debt forgiveness for workers.

    The exploitation has now fed back onto the Capitalist system. The REAL problem Max is the lack of solidarity among workers to fight for a system of economic democracy and equality. Before there can be a “land tax” the struggle for economic equality and justice MUST precede it.

  17. Deadbeat said on April 19th, 2009 at 10:50pm #

    Max writes…

    Land is non-elastic, is the most progressive of any “tax” and since humans do not make land, land value is the most stable and limited revenue sources. This is very important when understanding economic justice. Land, the air, water is not owned by anyone. To be a good steward of land, a rent on it’s use would make it both accessible to all, put it in the public domain and capture community wealth for a stable human-scaled economy.

    Much of what you say Max is true. I agree with you that land, water and air should be free and shared by all. Unfortunately Max your solution still doesn’t address EXPLOITATION at the point of production which is why the United States is in its current predicament. The exploitation of the working class shifted their wealth into the banks only to have the banks lend the money back to hapless workers in order to achieve the “American Dream” at exorbitant rates and fees. Notice that Obama has no intention of debt forgiveness for workers.

    The exploitation has now fed back onto the Capitalist system. The REAL problem Max is the lack of solidarity among workers to fight for a system of economic democracy and equality. Before there can be a “land tax” the struggle for economic equality and justice MUST precede it.

  18. Max Shields said on April 20th, 2009 at 6:44am #

    Deadbeat,

    Exploitation is a problem at all levels of society and there is little on record to show it has ever been eliminated.

    The exploition of labor is something that can be addressed through various models of community ownership. But there is no utopia in this life. It takes vigilance and deep living democracy to reduce the inclination to exploit.

    Justice is not fully achieved it emerges, and changes as our expectations change. This is not a one and done “project”. Human social structures are complex. Biology and the cognitive sciences provide a window into emergence, which is dynamic, which is why there is no “end-state utopia”. It provides a window into human nature. So, we can provide social structures which guide us toward justice for all. Those stuctures are a three legged stool: Polity, Economy, and Culture. Together they weave our world-view.

    I would base any attempt at a just society on relatively static universal needs realizing that fulfillment is dynamic and prone to corrupting forces. For example, humans need safety. Once that need is statisfied there are other needs; but if safety is exploited it turns into a Military Industrial Complex. This “need” begins to poison other needs like community; while it exploits safety through fear.

    Once we understand what people need and that the dynamics of satisfaction which can be positive and negative, we can begin to develop as individuals and communities into healthy (non-exploitative), fulfilling relationships.

    But to be clear: there is simply no guarantee. It requires this deep understanding of basic universal human needs and the constant danger of those needs being exploitated. This awarness arms us with tools to combat through vigilance the corruption we are living in today. We are capable of seeing when it becomes pronounced, but it can subside and return as it does.

    In a word, DB, there is no simple answer, no ideology, no single text or opus that springs from one mind. Human communities, whether healthy or sick feed off of the individuals that make up the community. We do, in fact, create our world through communication, through social exchanges. This happens for all species, even single celled creatures.

    Human beings are land creatures and so there can be no human life, no justice without access to a commons, to a public domain. Privatization is the destruction of the commons, the destruction of life, a form of genocide. And land as defined as all natural resources is clearly central to justice and the elimination of poverty and exploitation; but it is only the foundation to build from. Those moments in time with various forms of indigenous wisdom understand this. When humans create a world-view that supercedes the natural, they create an unsustainable trajectory doomed, as I think we are, to implode and collapse.

    I don’t think this is simply a capitalistic phenomenon. Capitalism is relatively new and has evolved in ways contrary to even what Adam Smith penned. We have to look beyond/beneath capitalism to create very different set of relationships, rather than seeing an “ism” as the enemy when the problem is deeper and far more human than that.

  19. Tennessee-Chavizta said on April 20th, 2009 at 7:22am #

    The US far-right (I.E: The Republican Party nuts) are just angry, mad and desperate against Barack Obama and The Democrat Party. I acknowledge that Obama and The Democratic Party is a corporate-puppet party of big money and big business in America. However, they were democratically elected by a landslide of votes. (Vox Populis, Vox Deus)

    The Republican Party along with its white-nationalist, neo-nazi allies, are trying to do whatever they can to overthrow Obama from power.

    An ultra-right wing movement is rising in America, we are living in dangerous times. And the task of the US liberals and leftists is to do whatever they can to educate americans on the danger of the right-wing and ultra-right wing ideology.

    .

  20. Tim Sutton said on April 20th, 2009 at 7:55am #

    “They can not use computers (micro-circuitry developed by NASA) or the internet (originated in DARPA, a federal agency).”

    Err no. I believe Sir Tim Berners Lee (from the UK) who worked at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland is generally credited as the father of the internet.

  21. Phil said on April 20th, 2009 at 10:42am #

    Pressure to keep down taxes will reduce the revenue available to Obama, forcing him to cut expenditure. In other words, he won’t be able to fund his domestic programmes without reducing expenditure on foreign adventures…

    Sorry, but you’ve got that backwards. In truth, Barry won’t be able to continue funding the war machine without reducing expenditure on the public good. His record as senator and president is nothing if not consistent: when those two interests conflict, the public good will always be the one that suffers.

  22. kanomi said on April 20th, 2009 at 3:46pm #

    This article is a foolish canard. The issue is the government is stealing trillions of dollars through debt and taxes from the workers and the middle class and giving it to a criminal banking cartel and a blood-soaked military industrial complex. And you sit here and dare defend this?

    I am willing to pay local taxes for local roads, police, fire and other services, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to listen to your abusive and deceptive article telling me I have to pay taxes to support brutal wars of aggression and criminal takeover of our government by a moneyed mafia.

    Here’s an improvement to your article – makes all taxes voluntary and let citizens choose what services they will fund. Not some bought and paid for congressmen, some know-better than you bureaucrats, or hypocritical idiots like the author of this pestilent scream for more statism and oppression.

  23. Kaelieh said on April 20th, 2009 at 5:18pm #

    kanomi,

    We’re definitely in agreement. Back in the day our government was funded 95% by tariffs. I don’t know if that’d work into today’s world, maybe we’d need something different but still voluntary (something that’s not coming straight out of our checks), being able to reject paying taxes is the only way a citizen has to keep their government in check and stopping it from growing into a Leviathan.

  24. Joe said on April 23rd, 2009 at 11:52am #

    If you like taxes so much you pay them. I can’t stand you people that think the government solves everything. I was born in the greatest country on earth. It’s the greatest country because I have the right to pursue any career I want and as much wealth as I want. It’s not the greatest country because I give the government half my pay check every week. If that’s what you want then “you” move to Europe. I like my country just the way it is and do not need some moron in congress 1000 miles away from where I live telling me whats best for me in my state. Also it may have only been six million people at those protests but what other protest have you ever seen or heard of that carried so many minds thinking the same thought. Oh and by the way you didn’t take into account the fact that there would have been a lot more people there if they were not working that day to support the lazy ass scumbags that just sit on there Obama all day. You truly are a supreme idiot.

  25. Melissa said on July 3rd, 2009 at 5:19pm #

    I love it! I can’t say I completely agree with this article, but the wisdom of some of the regular posters in the comments shines through very beautifully.

    I think it is error to generalize the entire group and to believe that the bastions of that one party were really the impetus, or represent the total. Many of the people were there specifically in protest of the bailout that happened against the wishes and clear mandates of citizens of all stripes. It was the media gatekeepers and their puppeteers that co opted the message and deliberately portrayed the protests as the business as usual of the “never tax” crowd, which is an incomplete context. The protests need more plurality . . . this is a message that the other side(s) of the spectrum should refine and make less ridiculous.

    Many working folk who fall into these groups and end up working against their own interests would benefit from hearing the messages so well laid out in above comments. They could be saved from the perverse subculture that taints these protests.

    I hope some of you are putting that wisdom to good use in local politics. We desperately need that . . . it’s not that public services are bad, it’s that the bulk of the taxes are use for destructive means and cushy retirements for incumbents that haven’t earned them in true service.

    Let’s get rid of corporations.

    Peace, Resistance, Hope,
    Melissa