Taxes, Death, Then More Taxes
Taxes on the living, the dead and those in between

Washington’s all-out brawl on whether to “give people a tax cut” missed the mark completely. Neither the President nor Congress can give anybody anything – they are merely able to let people keep a little more of their own earnings.

The President refers to his proposal to cut income tax rates as a refund to Americans who have been overcharged by their government. This overcharge created an enormous surplus which has tempted members of Congress, in their unbridled pursuit of re-election, to spend wildly on ever more programs of questionable worth. Last year, federal spending shot up eight percent, far more than the growth of personal income, inflation or our economy.

When Bill Clinton took office, federal taxes were 17.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When he left, they were at 20.6 percent of the GDP. Never in peacetime has Washington consumed more of the nation’s wealth. Since 1992, personal income has grown 5.6 percent per year. In contrast, Federal income tax collections soared by 9.1 percent.

Government is awash in taxpayers’ money and doesn’t need more. Huge surpluses demonstrate two things; that taxes are too high and that politicians will spend every dollar left in Washington. The only way to slow the spending binge by Congress is to refund part of the immense surplus to taxpayers.

Please, Washington, no more talk about a tax cut’s “cost” to government. Excessive taxes cost taxpayers more than their food, shelter, clothing and transportation combined. People know better than government how to spend their money. It is their own money to invest, spend for children’s college education, purchase a home, grow a business, replace an automobile, purchase health insurance and, yes, purchase new car mufflers when necessary.

Opponents propose a “trigger” to stop tax cuts “if there is not enough revenue to cover government spending.” Pork barrel spenders could stop the tax cut even after it becomes law, by spending so much that there would be a surplus. How about a “trigger” to cut spending instead?

Another non-supportable argument used by the chronic spenders to short circuit a tax cut was to claim that Reagan’s tax cuts of the 1980s created the deficits. Wrong. Those cuts reduced rates, but revenue collected by Washington increased in every year of both Reagan administrations. Congress just spent it all and more. The Kennedy tax cut of the 1960s, like Reagan’s, stimulated the economy. Critics who predicted the cuts would drain money from the Treasury were wrong.

Dozens of special interest groups who banded together in opposition to George W. Bush’s tax cut plan have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants in recent years. Could there be a little conflict of interest here?

While a tax cut now would probably “kick start” a slow economy as aforementioned cuts did, that is not the cornerstone of the case for tax cuts. The cornerstone is that taxes are too high. Americans want a tax cut. They want it now, front-loaded in the near years rather than future years. They want the “marriage penalty tax” eliminated. They want the death tax abolished. Taxpayers do not work a lifetime creating a successful business and farms or accumulating modest wealth in order to let government confiscate their money and property when they die.

Half of America’s citizens pay no income tax, exacerbating the burden of those who must pay. Every tax represents a transfer of power and freedom from the people to the government. Surplus funds allow politicians to buy votes by redistributing our money to someone else for a myriad of questionable programs.

The lack of capacity for restraint by Congress engenders widespread civic cynicism. Wealth that exists in our country was not created by confiscation and redistribution – it was created by permitting people to control their own lives and money.

Some wise words about taxing and spending: “The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled.” — Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 B.C.

Pat Freibert is a former Kentucky state representative from Lexington.
editorial@lanereport.com

Back to Perspective Index

Back to May Issue

Copyright 1996-2001, by Kentucky Business Online.  All rights reserved.

Editorial content is copyright 2001, Lane Communications Group
All editorial material is fully protected and must not be reproduced in any manner without prior permission.

The Lane Report is a trademark of Lane Communications Group.  All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.