Income Tax

In the United States tax law is a complex system which includes rules related to, but not limited to, income, gift, payroll, and estate taxes. Legally speaking, the current income tax came into being in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified. This Amendment stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to census or enumeration (1)." Since it's inception there have been several attempts to repeal the 16th Amendment, and to abolish the Income Tax (2). Whether or not this is the right course of action is hard to determine, but one thing is certain; this is a complex issue which must be closely examined.

One type of alternative which has been seriously considered is a Consumption Tax. A consumption tax is a tax on items consumed. The United States actually already has a type of consumption tax in the form of a sales tax. Some, however feel that we should abolish all other forms of tax and just have a pure consumption tax. One proposal which was introduced in 1999 (The FairTax proposal) would abolish all federal taxes (income, gift, payroll etc. etc.) in favor of a flat 23% consumption tax (3). This proposal would also abolish the IRS, and instead create two new Bureaus within the Department of the Treasury instead. The FairTax has yet to pass committee however. Proponents of a consumption tax claim that by only taxing items consumed citizens will be encouraged to save money instead of spending it. Some also believe that by taxing only products sold we can tax criminals who would not pay income taxes normally (4). Reports conflict on whether an almost pure consumption tax would help or hinder the economy overall, but it is clear that more research is needed.

Another type of tax plan which has been considered is a flat tax. A flat tax is exactly what it sounds like; a constant tax rate imposed on all members of a society. Two men, Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, wrote a novel expounding the virtue of a flat tax rate (5). The idea was to simplify the US tax code greatly, and to eliminate marginal tax rates. That is to make it so that as one's income grows one's taxes do not. Hall, and Rabushka felt that this encouraged laziness. Flat Taxes have already been instituted in a number of countries mostly in Eastern Europe (6). Seven states within the United States also have a flat tax rate (7). The problem with the idea of a flat tax rate becomes immediately clear; a flat tax is completely blind. A multimillionaire will feel the loss of 15% of their income a lot less than a person making only $60,000 per year.

Personally, I'm not 100% sure where I am on the issue of income tax. On one level, I understand why one would want to eliminate the income tax. I can understand wanting to keep 100% of the money one has earned. I can also understand why one would want our tax system simplified. Our system seems incredibly complex, and a simpler system would most likely help increase compliance with said code. However, while I agree that we should attempt to simplify the tax code I believe that the income tax should be kept in place. As I said the idea of a flat tax seems to blind, but I also think that a consumption tax may decrease the United States economy. And with the economy's current boom and bust cycle this seems doubly irresponsible. Instead I believe in marginal tax rates. I think that those who have higher incomes should pay higher taxes than those who make less. Which of course is the system the US already has in place. Data has shown that the wealthiest 5% of taxpayers accounted for 60% of income tax, while the bottom 50% only contributed 3% (4). Clearly there is interest in overhauling our current tax code out there, and more research is definitely required.

Drugs

One issue which isn't on the forefront of a lot of minds is drug legalization. Not just the legalization of marijuana, or MDMA (ecstasy), but rather the legalization of all drugs. The majority (around 82 percent according to one poll [1]) of Americans oppose the legalization of heroin and cocaine the same way alcohol is legalized. There are a multitude of pros and cons to both sides of the argument, and honestly at this point in time full drug legalization is nothing but a pipe dream for its advocates. However, I would still like to examine both sides of the argument. Whether these arguments are valid is up to the reader to decide.

One argument against drug legalization which holds a lot of weight is health concerns. Few would deny the negative effects which illegal drugs have on the human body. Some argue that if more drugs were to be legalized this would in turn lead to increased hospital admissions, and general health care costs. Others criticize the drug legalization movement from a legal view point. The USDEA claims that "Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs" (2). I once had a debate with a social studies teacher of mine who used the argument that the Constitution says that the job of the government is to protect the citizens as a reason to keep drugs illegal. Some say that if drugs were legal the dealers would not go away and would instead focus on a younger market. Finally, one cannot ignore the moral outrage many people feel about drugs and drug use (3).

The Pro side of the legalization argument has it's own points to make. For one, many cite the funding that many terrorist organization gain from drug sales as a reason to legalize (4). The reason the terrorists are able to profit off this sale is because the drugs are on the black market. Others cite the profit that the United States could theoretically make off the close control and taxation over a drug market. Still others use the argument that if the US were to control the drug market they could help lessen the dangers the drugs pose by closely monitoring what the drugs are cut with, the dosages, etc. Many feel that current US drug laws actually support the growth of large drug cartels. For example, one member of a Columbian drug cartel stated that he actually relied on US drug laws to help increase market price and to weed out smaller dealing operations (5).

I fall totally on the pro side of the argument. I feel that all drugs should be legalized from marijuana to cocaine to heroin. I could cite a myriad of reasons why I came to this decision, but I think to me it's mostly a matter of choice. I feel that it is not the role of the government to regulate its citizens's personal choices. Instead I feel that the government should exist to protect my right to choose not to take it away. Personally I have never abused a drug, nor drunk alcohol (nor do I have any real desire to), but I would fight tooth and nail for any citizen's right to do so. Would I prefer it if other's did not use drugs or alcohol? Sure, but it's not my right to tell them not to. I must say though, that is me coming from an idealized point of view. I understand that we will most likely not end drug prohibition in my lifetime, and that if it does ever happen it won't be for many generations (there are just too many social stigmas surrounding drug abuse). Instead perhaps we could legalize less dangerous drugs like ecstasy or marijuana. Perhaps we could just lessen the penalties for drug possession to help free up our prisons and allow our police officers to focus on more violent crimes. I would be happy with that. At the end of the day however, the end of drug prohibition would be my ultimate goal.

Finally, I think I'd like to end with a quote from a favored author of mine which inspired my interest in this argument "Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error of judgement" - Philip K. Dick (6)