Taxes...

Ahh... what the heck... label this another "Open Letter" to Nan Hayworth!

Nan. As you well know the Democrats and their media allies will try hard to "tag" Republicans with wanting to "extend tax cuts to the rich."

Well... it's time that you and indeed all Republicans officeholders and soon-to-be officeholders respond with a intellectually honest reply based upon basic American concepts of fairness and equity.

What's a "fair" percentage of one's income for the authorities to demand? Throughout human history - both secular and religious tradition - a 10% "tithe" seems to represent a reasonable opening gambit.

(One might say, "if it's good enough for God...")

Of course the more separate "authorities" one is answerable to, the greater the number of individual "tithes" - or in terms of government demands... taxes - individuals are subject to.

Here in America - depending upon where one lives, works, or simply spends money - one is subject to federal and/or state income taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, school taxes, fees, surcharges, tolls... and on and on and on.

Individual taxes, fees, and surcharges can amount to pennies... well under a full percentage point... but they can also be levied at rates some would consider confiscatory.

Now we come to the question, though... don't we...? What exactly is "confiscatory?"

Is 10% confiscatory? Most would no doubt say "no."

How about 20%?

Thirty percent...??? Forty percent...??? Fifty percent...???

I ask... assuming the money is legally earned... does a government supposedly of and for free citizens have a right to demand half - or, worse, beyond half - of a citizen's income (or in regard to sales taxes half or more again in taxes accessed for the "privilege" of buying a legal product or service) under penalty of law... under threat of force?

Now, putting aside for the moment the multitude of federal, state, and local taxes Americans are subject to and also laying to the side the reality that these taxes are cumulative, allow me to focus the topic upon just one tax... the federal income tax.

First a bit of context:

When the 16th Amendment was first ratified and signed into law, the new "federal income tax" rate went into effect with a ceiling of 7% - and that top rate was only for taxpayers earning more than $500,000... and we're talking $500,000 in 1913 dollars! (And bear in mind... this new "federal income tax" - even at the then-floor of 1% - was paid by only one out of a hundred Americans! Ninety-nine out of a hundred were exempt due to the fact that their incomes didn't rise to the level triggering even the 1% tax!)

In any case... (*SIGH*)... the key number here is "seven" - as in 7%.

So... for the sake of argument... allow me to posit as an "opening bid" that if our nation is going to rely upon a federal income tax for a huge portion of federal revenues, then the 7% "top rate" of the original federal income tax "table" is the "opening bid" for a top assessment of 7%.

On the other extreme... the ceiling... (and bear in mind, again, for the moment we'll just pretend - for the sake of this discussion - that other taxes besides the federal income tax simply don't exist)... let's throw out a common sense guideline:

It is... on it's face... universally recognized as unjust for any government supposedly representing a free People to demand more than an equal share of any citizen's income.

Fair enough...???

Setting the basic goal posts at 7% and 50% respectively... a fair enough starting point for further discussion...???

Well, Nan, going back to addressing you directly with regard to how Republicans need to respond to the Democrats' charges that we unjustly favor "tax cuts for the wealthy" my suggestion is a simple one:

Since in the real world all of us do pay taxes above and beyond federal income taxes, I'd suggest that an "opening bid" of say 33.3% as a federal income tax ceiling would be looked upon by the average American as just.

Your position and that of your fellow Republican elected officials: "No just federal government would even contemplate laying claim to more than one-third of an American's income."

Now... if you're wondering why then I suggested planting the "high end goal post marker" at 50% rather than 33.3%, this is where we connect the concept of "federal income tax" to the reality of "American taxation."

Of course it's up to the individual states and their component municipalities to decide upon their own tax rates. Most states have some form of income tax... a few don't. A resident of one locality in one state making say $50,000/yr. will "share" a higher or lower percentage of his or her earnings with "government" than another American making the same salary but living or working somewhere else. Then of course there's property taxes... school taxes... yadda, yadda, yadda....

My point is this: Just as it's surely defensible - even laudable... a demonstration of common sense - for you and your Republican colleagues to argue that no American should be forced to turn over more than one-third of his or her earnings to the federal government in income taxes... it's just as obvious - and I'm guessing that it would be even more universally accepted - to promote as a moral and ethic concept that no American should be forced to surrender more than half of his or her income to "government" as a broad entity.

Anyway... (*SMILE*)... I'm not trying to write a bill here... I'm simply outlining a philosophical proposal that I believe would resonate with the American People.