Elizabeth Crum

I admit I’ve been a little ambivalent about the upcoming Las Vegas Tea parties (July 3rd or 4th depending on which you choose).  The one on April 15 was great fun, and I made some friends and gained new contacts – but I’ve wondered since then, what really came of it?  And what’s next?

Ralph Benko has a suggestion in his latest Examiner column, and I kinda like it.  As they say, “Go big or stay home.”  Or – and I happen to know this is one of Ralph’s favorite quotes - ”Lost causes are the only ones worth fighing for.”  (Clarence Darrow) 

Here’s the core of the piece:

There are plenty of targets for the tea parties. Most ambitious is the call for repeal of the 16th Amendment — the income tax amendment.

A declaration is circulating on the Internet pointing out that July 12 is the Centenary of Congress’s passage of the 16th Amendment and proclaiming a National Day of Mourning coupled with a demand for repeal. The key proponent of the demand for Repeal is John Hanson, an old Cajun chased out of Louisiana by Katrina and resettled in rural Virginia.

With no money to speak of, little exposure, and just a handful of very part time volunteers, he is using www.RepealIncomeTax.com to enlist thousands of signers of the declaration demanding repeal. On July 12th, Hanson will start a three-year campaign to raise awareness of the issue in the states.

Before all we roll our eyes and say, “yeah, like that’s gonna happen,” Ralph reminds us that the 18th Amendment – Prohibition- was repealed after a concentrated national outcry. No constitutional amendment had ever been repealed before and many naysayers laughed at that one, too.  Notably, the income tax has something in common with prohibition:   it is starting to be hated with a passion.

A movement for repeal, if not succesful, could perhaps at least spur major reform.  A welcome thing indeed, and what a wild wonder if the Tea Party Movement could one day point back and say, “We helped do That!”

Veronique @ The Corner is on fire today.  Memorize the data so you can speak intelligently on the issue of income taxes:

Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes   [Veronique de Rugy]

I am sure the proposition that “everyone should pay income taxes” seems obvious to you and me. And yet, the reality is quite different. Over at the Wall Street Journal, Ari Fleischer, Pres. George W. Bush’s former press secretary, has some interesting numbers about how many taxpayers pay the income tax, and how much each group contributes.

At the top:

A very small number of taxpayers — the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year — pay 72.4% of the nation’s income taxes. They’re the tip of the triangle that’s supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier.

At the bottom:

According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 — 60% of the country — paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation’s income.

While very politically appealing, it has some serious economic implications:

Picture an upside-down pyramid with its narrow tip at the bottom and its base on top. The only way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won’t fall down. The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code; the government collects its money almost entirely from the people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side. So long as the pyramid spins, the system can work. If it slows down enough, it falls.

The open question is: When will it stop spinning? Read the whole thing here.

Read about it here on Boston.com.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from blogging and receiving tons of email, we all have our “pet” electoral issues and hot buttons – and they vary widely from person to person.  For me, it’s national security first; the economy (and tax policy) second; and energy policy (a closely related) third.

On the subject of the economy, Jack Kemp has a good op-ed on the presidential candidates and their proposed tax plans (thanks to Mike Davis at the NV RLC for bringing it to my attention).  I strongly encourage voters to read the whole thing, but here are some key points (summarized in my own words):

Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut in the form of a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers (except those in the top 5 percent of income earners, who will pay more taxes) “unless the economy remains weak.”  So…Obama does recognize that tax increases on the rich have a negative effect on the overall economy.  (But why does he think that matters only in “weak” economic times?)

Obama’s tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, so it won’t benefit the general economy because it provides no long term (additional) incentives for work, savings, investment or business expansion.  (People will get their $500 refund check, spend it, and that will be That.)

On the other hand, McCain wants to double the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 for families regardless of income.  (For middle-class workers in the 25% tax bracket, the $3,500 exemption increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child.  Families with three children are thus looking at $2,600+ in tax savings.)

And McCain proposes marginal tax rate reductions – which is great news in country that pays the second highest corporate tax rates in the entire industrialized world.  McCain wants to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – a boon for middle class workers in the form of new jobs, better pay, and a stronger dollar.

And all this will most likely raise rather than reduce tax revenues.  (Why?  Kemp cites a 2007 study by the Treasury Department which showed that Ireland — with a 12.5% corporate tax rate — raises just shy of 50 percent more revenue on a comparative basis than the U.S. does with a 35 percent rate!)

McCain would also keep the top capital gains tax rate and dividend tax at 15% which is needed in the stock world (stocks are now held by more than 2/3rds of all Americans).  McCain further wants to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which burdens 25 million middle-class families with another $2,700 in taxes each year (on average).

Obama, by contrast, has proposed to raise marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax — the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the payroll tax, the death tax, etc. and he would increase corporate taxes where and when he could.

McCain’s plan is a good start, but I agree with Kemp:  we need to promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our “confusing, contradictory and confiscatory tax code.”

Kemp outlines a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system (which is also worth reading about, at the end of his op-ed).