By Norman G. Axe Santa Monica
Regarding Frank M. Pelteson’s letter “Freedom from the tax man” (page 4, May 13) I have two comments.
First, the Congress has NO power to abolish ANY Amendment, let alone the 16th Amendment. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may only propose Amendments which must be ratified by three-fourths of the States.
Next, people, such as Mr. Pelteson, who advocate the repeal of the progressive income tax, never explain what form of taxation will replace the income tax.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in 1927 wrote: “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” Thus to have a civilized society, we must, as noted by Adam Smith in his “The Wealth of Nations," contribute toward the support of the government. The question that remains is what type or types of taxation will be levied upon the people. Adam Smith advocated that taxes be based on the individual’s ability to pay, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt, in proposing a graduated inheritance tax and graduated income tax, stated, “The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state, because he derives special advantage from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the state gives him.”
In 1909 Rep. Clark (D-Mo) opined that “the wit of man never devised a fairer or juster tax than a graduated income tax.”
If the income tax is abolished as advocated by Mr. Pelteson, then I presume he wants a national sales tax as its replacement. But sales and excise taxes are regressive in that the percentage of income spent on goods liable to taxation is higher among low-income groups. Regressiveness is often increased by the practice of applying the same tax to cheaper brands as to more expensive ones.
In 1909 Rep. James (D-Ky) stated that “no tax was ever more unjust than a tax upon consumption... A tax upon what some people eat and what they wear would deny them the necessaries of life, while others, rolling in opulence and accumulating their wealth into the millions, would not feel such a tax.” Similarly in 1909 Rep. Dies (D-Tex) commented, “What form of taxation could be more unjust than to tax a man in proportion to what he eats, wears, and uses? Is it fair and equal taxation to say that the poor laborer with a good appetite should pay more taxes on the meal that he eats than the surfeited millionaire with a poor appetite? Is it fair and equal taxation to demand that a hard working but poor farmer with a family of 10 should pay 10 times as much taxes to the Federal Government as the wealthy capitalist with no family at all? And yet such is the injustice which arises under a system which taxes consumption instead of wealth.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 19, 2008. Read the original PDF.