Comment: I spent the morning reading a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If the past is an indicator. (see in situ)

I spent the morning reading a

I spent the morning reading a few chapters that caught my interests. There's some good stuff in there. Thanks for the links.

You writing tells me that your a bit of an interesting guy, so I'll share a though with you about the IRS, or a solution to tax problems in general. It's a bit more subtle than just ending the IRS, but I think it would be more broadly effective and perhaps more palatable to the people still fully entrenched in their faith for the sate. It's simple and it may even squash attempt for a simple replacement the IRS with something else.

Here's what I see. All the existing modes of taxation, as part of their structure, feed back into perpetuating and enhancing the same tax systems. The bodies that collect taxes buy some sort of favour from the people that they are taxing and then direct whatever remainder they can get away with to funding affiliated industries. So, two things happen. Public officials market for causes that better align with their affiliated industries and industries try to market themselves as being in the public interest (defense, securities, health care etc). The bad part is that this happens both conscious and deliberately, but also passively just based on the ideology that the goal of the government is to provide services to it's people. The more they can sell this connection and services, the easier it is to directly transfer people's wealth to affiliated industries. What makes it a difficult corruption to overcome is that there is fairly legitimate and semi-legitimate business mixed it. So, even if we end up with a pound of bad, people will look the other way because they are content getting an ounce of good. That's the basic scheme independent of how the taxes are levied, whether it's income, property, sales tax etc. The same people that levy the taxes also spend the taxes or delegate where it goes. In the process they buy as much favour as they need to get elected and the problem perpetuates to the point where the maximum amount of resources gets pulled out of the private sector without the public screaming foul. Obviously, it wont matter how many good altruistic people you plug in there, the system will favour those that can game it for their own interests.

So consider this. What if it became the prerogative of the people that all taxes levied had to be done through an elected body that can only set the tax rate. They can't collect it or spend it, and no additional taxes can be levied. It's just a separation of powers. It doesn't have to restructure any level of government or mess with people entrenched in the system. It just means that the voter would have a barrier to the extent that they can be taxed and elected officials would have no direct way to buy favour or directly delegate money to affiliated industries. That would be a pretty palatable concept to sell to the public. I would certainly appreciate it. Further, no drastic changes in government funding has to occur immediately, so people will be less worried about giving up on their ounce of good that the system has made them dependent on.

Obviously this doesn't fix the other levels of corruption going on, but I think it would undermine much of the Legal Crime that requires someone to both market for industries and buy the public's favour to get it down.

I realize that this idea is not a very satisfying solution because it doesn't offer reprisal for past corruption or fix current government debacles, but it would have long term influence IMO. Then again, it's not like you guys have countable paper ballots at your polling stations to make the democratic process legitimate anyway...So, perhaps there needs to be two changes.

Anyway, thanks for the reading material Joe.