Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Taxing Businesses for Using Public Resources and for Benefiting from Taxpayer-Funded Privileges

Introduction

     The proposal below is a suggestion as to what business tax rates ought to be, based on the notion that a business should be taxed in accordance with how much assistance it receives from the public, the commons, and/or from taxpayers.
     The idea behind this is one of free enterprise; that a business cannot call itself truly “private” unless it provides most or all of its needs by itself, without the assistance of the government or the state. The goal of the tax proposal below, is to impose punitive taxes, in order to discourage the use of public resources.
     Such resources include taxpayer-funded privileges, monopoly rights, and other unfair advantages which businesses would not have in the absence of the state. Since the state is a mechanism which uses coercion, threats, and violence to extract taxes, it is unfair for businesses to enlist the state to extort from taxpayers in a manner which would be illegal if the businesses did it directly. The state hands taxpayer funds, and lucrative contract deals, over to selected cronies; in a process which is sometimes called either “picking winners and losers”, “economic interventionism” or “Keynesianism”, “crony capitalism”, or “redistribution from the poor to the rich”.
     If and when subsidies and bailouts and other privileges are being offered to businesses, it will be necessary and proper to tax such businesses, in order to provide fairness; whether through a social safety net, or through administrative reforms which could increase the opportunity to compete.

     The rationale for choosing the tax rates, is that: 1) all tax rates combined add up to 100%; 2) the most egregious offenses against principles of responsible enterprise are taxed the most heavily; and 3) the second-least egregious offense is taxed at twice the rate of the least egregious offense, and the third-least is taxed at three times the rate of the least, and so on.
     This means that if a business takes every possible opportunity to use public resources which are afforded to it, then it must pay 100% of its profits going forward (or of its earnings going forward; or of its accumulated wealth, in the event of a revolution, or the repeal of the ban on ex-post-facto laws).
     The time frame in question could be annual – meaning that the proposals apply if a business has committed an “offense against free enterprise” in a given calendar year - or the time frame could be all-time, or cumulative, or any other temporal variable.
     I am leaving the matter of what to tax, and when to tax it, unresolved, in order to make this an open-ended proposal, which is not intended as a particular law, but instead as an open-ended framework. I am doing this in hopes that my proposal will inspire others to build upon it, to make it as specific as will be necessary to develop it into a complete plan for reforming the way we tax business (and tailor-made to the particular legislative and logistical needs of the jurisdiction in question).


Proposals

     #1. If a business discriminates against customers, while maintaining public accommodations open to the market-going public and substantially affecting interstate commerce, and while receiving taxpayer funds, then the business's total amount of taxable wealth, should be subject to a tax of 8.74545%.
     #2. If a business receives bailout funds from the Department of the Treasury, then that business should be subject to a tax of 8.345454%.
     #3. If a business receives lucrative contracting deals from the government, then that business should be subject to a tax of 7.945454%.
     #4. If a business wields a collusive or unnatural monopoly, according to the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition, then that business should be subject to a tax of 7.545454%.
     #5. If a business is a for-profit entity which was created by government or an agency thereof, then that business should be subject to a tax of 7.145454%.
     #6. If a business receives assistance in declaring bankruptcy, from the Department of Justice and its bankruptcy courts, then that business should be subject to a tax of 6.745454%.
     #7. If a business receives corporate subsidies from the Department of Commerce, and/or any state chamber of commerce, then that business should be subject to a tax of 6.345454%.
     #8. If a business offers publicly traded stock, which is being traded by any public official(s) capable of regulating an industry which is relevant to that stock, then that business should be subject to a tax of 5.945454%.
     #9. If a business receives finance or insurance from the Export-Import Bank, of goods it produces which are purchased in foreign countries, then that business should be subject to a tax of 5.545454%.
     #10. If a business receives trade promotions and trade protections from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, then that business should be subject to a tax of 5.145454%.
     #11. If a business receives a corporate charter, or a limited liability corporation (L.L.C.) designation and protection, from a Secretary of State's office, then that business should be subject to a tax of 4.745454%.
     #12. If a business benefits from favorable government regulations regarding professional licensing standards, in a way that “grandfathers-in” old established companies and “job creators”, then that business should be subject to a tax of 4.345454%.
     #13. If a business receives intellectual property protections (such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks) from the U.S. Office of Trademarks and Patents, then that business should be subject to a tax of 3.945454%.
     #14. If a business benefits from the easy credit and low interest rates which are offered by the Federal Reserve System, then that business should be subject to a tax of 3.545454%.
     #15. If a business receives discounts on public utilities (such as roads, sewage and waste disposal, and electricity and other forms of energy) for buying in large amounts, then that business should be subject to a tax of 3.145454%.
     #16. If a business receives small business loans from the Small Business Administration, then that business should be subject to a tax of 2.745454%.
      #17. If a business benefits from favorable zoning laws which allow wealth to be created, earned, and stored far from where people are trying to take it home to, then that business should be subject to a tax of 2.345454%.
      #18. If a business receives physical property protection from the police, then that business should be subject to a tax of 1.945454%.
     #19. If a business receives bank deposit insurance from the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), then that business should be subject to a tax of 1.545454%.
     #20. If a business receives public utilities instead of providing its own utilities, then that business should be subject to a tax of 1.145454%.
     #21. If a business receives physical property protection from the U.S. Armed Forces, then that business should be subject to a tax of 0.745454%.
     #22. If a business occupies land in a manner which makes the ground beneath the surface unusable or inaccessible to the public or to others, then that business should be subject to a tax of 0.345454%.

     Additional Proposal: File criminal charges against businesses which commit offenses #1-#8, in addition to taxing them at the rate mentioned. Their privilege to receive the same sort of privileges in the future, could additionally be curtailed, to help reduce the chance that the businesses will continue to exploit the opportunities offered to them.



Post-Script

     This proposal was inspired and influenced by my April 2016 infographic “Government is the Source of Corporate Privilege”, and by Andy Craig's idea to abolish Secretary of States' offices in order to prevent the creation of new corporations by the state, which inspired that infographic.
     That infographic, which lists ten types of artificial business privilege and their sources in government, is available at the following link:

     To learn more about why I believe that monopolies and recipients of taxpayer funds should be taxed whenever such funds are being offered, please read my May 2019 article “Rent, Profit, Interest, Usury, and Taxing Monopolies”:




Written on September 22nd, 26th, and 29th

Published on September 29th, 2020

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Pyramids Are Naturally Upside-Down

Originally Written on December 29th, 2014
Edited and Expanded on December 3rd, 2015
Title Borrowed from Andrew Napolitano



Thanks to the 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn, private intrastate non-commerce is now regarded as public interstate commerce. You read that correctly; if you refuse to sell your property, keep it on your own land, and you don’t move it into another state, that is legally the same as going into another state in order to sell your property.
Thanks to the 1964 case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, private intrastate commerce is regarded as interstate commerce affecting the public. You read that correctly; if you set up a business in one state, and you don’t set up any branches in any other states, you are engaged in interstate commerce, because you might serve people from out-of-state. Actually, you might even be required to do so. Additionally, as a result of that case, the distinction between what is public property versus what is private property is blurred and virtually non-existent.
Thanks to the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London, private “economic development” projects satisfy the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. You read that correctly; not only has the Supreme Court long since rendered moot the issue of whether you are allowed to refuse government “offers” to buy your property and compensate you for it; now the government can use Eminent Domain to transfer your private property – your home or business – to another private owner, and pay you whatever it damn well pleases.
Thanks to the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case), non-commerce is commerce. You read that correctly; refraining to engage in commerce (in this case, to purchase health insurance) is engaging in commerce. Also, a penalty is now regarded as a tax; the government can fine you a “tax” upon the zero-dollar “transaction” of not buying a health insurance policy. Not only has the Supreme Court long since abandoned the idea that a tax on a good must be modest, and not levied in egregious disproportion to the original value of the good; it now says that an infinity-percent “tax” can be levied upon something that does not even exist?

How long can a civil society survive, when it believes that “public” means “private”, “in-state” means “between states”, not buying something is commerce, and taking someone’s money because they did nothing, is a “tax”, rather than a fine, a penalty, or pure and simple theft?
How long can a civil society survive believing that words have no meaning, or that two plus two equals five?
Cue calliope music.

On Prison Labor and the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments

Written on December 2nd, 2015
Edited on December 6th, 2015



The 13th Amendment didn't "outlaw slavery", it merely legalized "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime. So the prison system is modern-day legalized slavery. Incarcerated inmates in prisons work for slave-level wages, and in fact, Georgia and Texas have laws providing for a maximum wage of $0.00 per hour for such prison laborers.
But the rest of us living outside of brick-and-mortar jails and prisons still have to serve others, by paying taxes on our income, and, in some jurisdictions, serving whomever comes into our businesses.
If we do not do so voluntarily, then we are serving others involuntarily. And since that's only legal as punishment for a crime, we have to ask, if we are being punished, what crime did we commit?
How are refusing to pay taxes, and refusing to serve would-be customers on private property, "crimes", in the real sense of corpus delicti (“body of the crime”, i.e., evidence, i.e., a corpse) meaning that a real harm or taking must result from one person's action, depriving another of legitimate property, or harming them?
They're not. One person's labor, and the product thereof, are not the property of anybody else.

On another note, the 5th Amendment says that no property shall be taken for public use, except with compensation. The federal government took the slaves owned by their masters, but did not compensate the masters.
My point is not that it's too bad they weren't compensated, my point is that the slaves were taken for public use. We, the public, are all being compensated for the slave masters' losses, with the funds gained through slaves' descendants' free-of-cost prison labor and involuntary labor in the "free" economy.
The only difference between 1865 and now is that today, people of all races can be commanded to serve people they don't want as customers, and put in prison and forced to labor for the benefit of others (actually, that's a distortion of fact, because many Irish, Scots, and other whites were held as slaves prior to the end of the Civil War).

So we are now faced with the puzzling condition that we, along with our “duly-elected representatives” who wield partial power of attorney over us, are part-owners of ourselves as involuntary servants.
Ah, breathe that free, free air. Isn't it great?

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Tax Cuts

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
- Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut
- Capital Gains Tax Cut
- Business Tax Cut
- Estate Tax Cut

     I will vote for all of the above mentioned tax cuts.
     Given the fact that this year we are between 2/3 and ¾ of the way closer to reducing the gap between the 2009 deficit and a balanced budget, it is no longer anywhere near as unreasonable to consider cutting taxes as it seemed five years ago; nor unreasonable to refrain from increasing spending, borrowing, Quantitative Easing, the debt, the deficit, and establishing realistic, permanent limits on debt, spending-to-GDP ratios, and debt-to-GDP ratios.
     A budget that cuts commerce, military, and intelligence first - before carefully cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and the Departments of H.U.D. and Education, and other departments and programs - will make the prospects of decreased taxes and balanced budgets even more realistic. Therefore, I will vote for legislation providing for across-the-board income tax cuts, following cuts in spending and the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I will vote to lower all federal income taxes to 15% - and then, as soon as possible, to 12.5% - for all income earners living above the poverty line. I will also vote for capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gift tax cuts, because they are all duplicative taxes; taxes on the savings of and transactions in wealth which has already been taxed generally as personal income.
     In principle, I am as open to reducing and abolishing general taxes on personal income as I will on reducing and abolishing the four duplicative taxes. This is because these taxes could not rightfully be considered duplicative taxes if the initial income taxation never occurred in the first place. But it is for that reason that I will be more open to abolishing general taxes on personal income.
     I will support abolishing general income taxes gradually (but not before enacting a temporary negative income tax) while keeping the capital gains, business dividends, estate, and gift taxes; for as long as are necessary to balance the budget and pay off the nation's debt. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment which would repeal the 16th Amendment and provide for the federal government to tax capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gifts, but not personal income in a general manner.
     I take this position because to enact taxation on the income of all earners (i.e.,capitation) - instead of earners in special categories – would only serve to perpetuate an unfair balance of the tax burden, risk increasing the costs and bureaucracy of tax collection, and risk that a surveillance state and the militarization of bureaucrats and police officers could be depicted as necessary to enforce it.
     While supporting the reduction of spending and the transition to a temporary negative income tax, I will vote to support legislation providing for the 10% to 15% range of rates now paid on capital gains to be assimilated to 15%, followed by a decrease of that rate to 12.5% as soon as the 15% spending-to-G.D.P. ratio limit – and a provision for swift transition to the 12.5% mark - have been met in a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I would additionally vote to support removing the second-lowest tax bracket's exemption from the capital gains tax, and I would vote to remove subsidies to businesses which pay less than zero in their taxes due to those subsidies, increasing the rates on all taxes they and their employees pay to the aforementioned 15% to 12.5% range.
     While supporting spending reductions and the negative income tax, I will also vote to support lowering taxes on business dividends from the 15% to 35% rates range to 15% for all, with only the lowest income bracket being exempted. I will also support lowering the estate tax rate from 40% down to 12.5% as soon as possible.
     After spending cuts have been achieved, the negative income tax has been enacted, debt has been reduced, and the negative income tax has been abolished, I will vote to support legislation authorizing the taxation of income and sales only upon condition of such legislation's constitutionality, and of such taxes being apportioned according to either the population of each state, the value of the land in each state, or some reconciliation thereof. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment to that affect, which would amend Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
     I will additionally sponsor legislation to authorize use of the federal government's power to collect duties, imposts, and excises, which Congress has the constitutionally enumerated power to levy. I will support levying such tariffs in a manner which imposes the highest fees on nations which have the greatest disparity of wealth, and standards on human rights, pollution, and labor safety and health, while imposing the lowest tariffs on nations which have the least of these problems. I believe that this would help avoid the risks of war associated with economic sanctions, as well as encourage the alignment of profitable trade with human rights and a decent standard of living.


     Finally, I would urge most states to double or triple their total revenues coming from the unimproved value of land, while phasing out general taxes on income and sales.





For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Tax Increases

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed all federal legislation which provides for tax increases.
     For government to control 40% of the spending in the nation – and for the federal government to control over 25% of the GDP (as was the case just several years ago) – is unsustainable. I believe that 15% is a more appropriate goal in the short term, and that 12.5% (one-eighth of G.D.P.; in today's terms $2.1 trillion out of a $16.8 trillion G.D.P.) is an appropriate long-term goal.
     I will introduce legislation that views this 12.5%-15% range as a base rate for taxation of any and all behaviors which are taxed by the federal government (in a manner which is constitutional), and the closing of loopholes based on this notion, as well as the notion that taxes should exempt anyone but people living below the poverty line.
     Reduction of taxes below the 12.5% rate should only follow additional reductions of federal spending to below that rate. Additionally, such cuts should follow the reduction of the deficit to zero (for which such spending reductions would provide), and the payment of all foreign and public debts.





For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Sources of Federal Revenue

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #2.



2. Primarily D, but all of the above under certain conditions
   (Taxing foreign trade is the only constitutional method of obtaining federal revenues, but any additional taxes on capital, labor, and consumption could be implemented constitutionally via the amendment process)
   The best method of obtaining federal revenues is to (D) tax foreign trade, because duties, imposts, and excises are the only types of taxation which the Congress has constitutionally enumerated power to levy.
   We should be wary that to tax (A) capital / profits, (B) labor / income, (C) consumption / sales, and/or (D) foreign trade / imports and exports may effectively discourage the action which is taxed, and remember that we should only tax things which we want to discourage; things like conspicuous consumption and frivolity.
   I would favor repealing the unconstitutional 16th Amendment which provided for the taxation of (B) income, and I would support funding the federal government through taxes on importation and exportation (as the only constitutional forms of taxation).
   While supporting a return to 100% federal revenue derived from (D) taxes on foreign trade, I would support transitioning to a situation in which taxes on foreign goods are supplemented by (C) a consumption tax which would act as a luxury law on conspicuous consumption and frivolity, alongside a negative tax on (B) income, and a tax correcting disparities in the gains of (A) capital and (B) labor.
   I would support such taxation legislation only under the condition that it be apportioned according to the population of the states, that it go through the amendment process, and that it not authorize the president or the Congress to wield some new powers to levy taxes which have no constitutional precedent.





For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Obamacare's Constitutionality and Employer Provided Health Insurance

     I will support legislation that will repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (ObamaCare), including the End the Mandate Act (H.R. 1101) and legislation similar to it.
     There are many reasons why the individual mandate to purchase insurance is not constitutional. It is not a tax on an activity; it is a penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. If the individual mandate were a tax, it would be an infinite percent tax on a zero-dollar item or transaction (i.e., the “act” of refraining from purchasing health insurance). Additionally, the exemptions that have been granted render this “mandate” not a mandate but rather a bundle of special favors; that they have been granted conflicts with the legal principle of equal protection under the law.
     Not only is the act of issuing a health insurance policy not commerce (as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869), refraining from purchasing health insurance does not even constitute trade. Without a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to be involved in the health care industry (except within the District of Columbia and the overseas territories), the federal government should have no role in regulating it.
     However, in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate insurance (i.e., keep it regular and uninhibited) in pursuance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in order to prevent unnatural monopolies in insurance sales.
     Given this authority, and the Obama Administration's admitted desire to work with Republicans to pass legislation that effectively drives down costs but doesn't resort to mandating purchases, I believe that there are many good reasons why the federal government should end the mandate and legalize the interstate purchase of health insurance (thus allowing insurers based in states with low average insurance costs to compete in states with high average costs).
     States might also wish to further cut insurance costs for patients by passing legislation providing for their health departments and bureaus – and health insurance cooperatives within them – to evolve into worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperatives (providing for a closer and more direct negotiation on prices and other issues between health workers and patients). Organizing bulk purchasing can, should, and must be done in order to cut costs and to create economies of scale powerful enough to balance the power of sellers, but when the State is more trusted and empowered to do so than the people and their enterprises through the markets, the results tend to be the exact opposite of what was intended.
     In order to improve the delivery of health insurance to people who need it (whether they are citizens or not), I will urge states to allow people to purchase real health insurance in the open marketplace, including affordable basic catastrophic accident and illness policies, and change of health status insurance.
     I will additionally urge states to refrain from implementing single-payer systems. Although it is not the federal government's business to order states to enact this or that policy on health insurance (besides requiring them to allow trade and competition across state lines), the monopsony which government single-payer systems wield derives from a special privilege to monopolistically compete in purchasing. Such states' purchase mandates act as regulatory barriers to interstate insurance purchase and sales, thereby driving costs up. I will support the augmentation of antitrust laws in order to apply to single-payer systems requiring universal coverage.
     Single-payer is also undesirable because it would require public taxpayer funds to subsidize the insurance of each and every health customer, including individuals who want expensive, dangerous, and/or medically unnecessary procedures. This would undoubtedly create nothing but more protracted budget battles and ideological in-fighting.
     I do not support any level of government taking steps towards prohibiting purchase of health insurance by agencies other than governmental entities; non-governmental alternatives must always exist, and government must not show preferences for any alternative through differential taxation.
     The federal government can and should close a tax loophole, by ceasing to exempt employees from paying taxes on employer-provided health insurance. This special favor has created financial incentives for leaving people without health insurance once they lose their jobs and become unemployed, because it is a benefit for people who stay employed, and a way to encourage them to refrain from purchasing outside plans. Although the federal government should eventually stop taxing earnings altogether, for the time being it should tax all compensation equally.




For more entries on commerce, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...