Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Should The Income Tax Be Scrapped?
There has been a lot of talk of late about drastically changing the nation’s income tax system, including getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 
Many people feel this is long overdue, while others believe such a dramatic change is too extreme and favor a general overhaul of the existing tax laws. 
Still others like things the way they are and prefer that nothing be done at all.
Before deciding whether or not the income tax and the IRS should be scrapped, we should also consider whether or not the present tax system is “fair” and, if not, what would be more equitable. 
Although arguments about this subject have raged back and forth for years, generally focusing on making the “rich” pay their “fair share,” we rarely hear specific facts about who actually pays most
of the income tax, or the least.
The Federal income tax, currently as high as 39.6% of “taxable income,” is increased by as much as 13.3% in state and local income taxes, plus another 6.20% and 1.45% in social security and
Medicare taxes, which makes the total tax burden for some taxpayers almost 61%, not including excise, sales and property taxes, along with a host of other taxes, assessments and fees too numerous
to mention. By contrast, medieval serfs were required to give only one-third of their production to the lord of the manor, and they were considered slaves. 
While those who have lower incomes pay the least, with tax rates that range from zero to 15 percent, they are also subject to Federal payroll taxes of 7.65%,
in addition to various state and local payroll taxes.
Because the same income is frequently taxed more than once, the effective cumulative tax rates are often much higher than most people realize. A simple analysis graphically illustrates the point:
If you track a $1,000 of corporate profits to a shareholder, the end result might be something like the following:
First, at the corporate level, the $1,000 may be taxed at around 35%. That leaves $650 available for dividend distribution. Those shareholders who receive a dividend and are in the top tax bracket
would pay 35% in Federal income tax on the $650 dividend income (married, filing jointly), leaving $257.40 to spend or save. If that money is saved and becomes part of the taxpayer’s estate, and
assuming the estate is taxed at the current maximum rate of 40%, it would be reduced by another $102.46 in Federal Estate Taxes, leaving a balance of only $154.
Thus, a $1,000 in corporate earnings, after passing through three levels of taxation, could conceivably end up being whittled down to $154. The original $1,000 of corporate profit would
have been assessed a total of $846 in taxes, or a whopping 84.6%. Is that the “fair share” that many politicians keep saying the “rich” should pay?
Facts generally don’t seem to matter much in these highly politicized arguments, but to properly frame the discussion, the following information should be considered (Source: Rush Limbaugh’s website):
·        Only half of all taxpayers pay 97% of the income tax (Federal). Putting it anotherway, half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all. 85% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 25%
of income earners.
·        The top 1% of wage earners (the “rich”) pay over one-third (39%) of the total Federal income taxes collected. (Up 2% from 2000 when President Bush took office).
·        The top 5% of wage earners (the “rich”) pay over half (54.36%) of all Federal income taxes.
·        The top 10% of wage earners (the “rich”) pay almost two-thirds (65.84%) of all income taxes, and
·        The top 25% of wage earners (the “rich”?) pay almost 84% of the total Federal income taxes received.
·        The Wall Street Journal reported, “In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes. Now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double
that share.”
And what percentage of all the income in the United States is earned by these groups?
·        The top 1% earn 16.77% of all income.
·        The top 5% earn 31.18% of the total income.
·        The top 10% earn 42.36% of the total income, and
·        The top 25% earn 64.86% of the total income.
So, although only 1% earn 16.77% of all the income, they also pay over one-third (39%) of the total income taxes collected. The top 5% earn a little over 31% of all the income but pay more
than half (54.36%) of the nation’s total income tax bill. And, while 25% earn about 65% of all the income, they pay almost 84% of the total income taxes.
It’s clear that the income tax burden is heavily skewed against those with higher incomes, some would say punitive, while almost half the filers pay no income tax at all.   
Just how much should the “fair share” be? Should the top 5% or 10% of the wage earners pay 80% of the income taxes? Or 90%? And, is it “fair” that almost half of all wage earners pay no income tax at all? 
When the 16th Amendment to the Constitution established the Federal income tax in 1913, the intent was to tax only the very rich. Rates began at 1% and increased to 7% for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than one percent of the population paid any income tax at all, compared with almost 50% of taxpayers paying as much as 35% of their taxable income today. 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median annual household income in the United States is roughly $50,000 per year. A Gallup poll found that those below $50,000 per year typically said they would
need to earn $100,000 or more in annual income to be rich. Those at or above the $50,000 level typically report they would need to earn $200,000 a year to be rich, which expands to $250,000 among those
well above the U.S. median income ($75,000 or more in annual household income).
Everyone would undoubtedly agree that taxes are necessary to operate the government, provide police protection, defend the nation, build roads, fund essential programs such as education and health care,
etc., etc., so the issue is really how to do it, and this invariably comes down to the question of whose ox should be gored, not what is “fair.”
We may have reached the point where changing our system of taxation is so long overdue that something more than tinkering is necessary. Three alternatives have been proposed: the Flat Tax, a national
sales tax, and ad valorem taxes. Politics aside (if that’s possible), perhaps we should examine these alternative options more closely.
© 2014 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Posted at 21:37 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Dating back to 1791, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees protection against “cruel and unusual” punishment and further provides “that excessive bail ought not be required,

nor excessive fines imposed…” (albany.edu, Chapter 9).


Capital Punishment

The death penalty in the U.S. has evolved from a form of punishment that was not initially considered “cruel and unusual” to the point where it is now viewed as such by many people.  In the U.S.,

the manner of execution has moved from hanging and the firing squad to the electric chair, the gas chamber and ultimately, in many states, to lethal injection.


“…The U.S. public still favors the death penalty by a 65 percent-to-30 percent margin, according to USA Today/Gallup polls of the last three years, but that is down from 80 percent that supported

capital punishment in 1994...Since capital punishment was reinstated three decades ago,  nearly 900 of the 1,056 executions carried out through 2006 were by lethal injection.  It is the primary or

exclusive form of execution in 37 of the 38 states with capital punishment (Nebraska uses the electric chair).” (stateline.org, Jan 17, 2007).


Lethal Injection

A USA Today report noted, “A federal judge ruled…that Tennessee’s new lethal injection procedures are cruel and unusual punishment, interrupting plans to execute a killer…” who beat an elderly

woman to death during a burglary in 1983.  “The protocol ‘presents a substantial risk of unnecessary pain’ and violates death row…inmate’s constitutional protections…The new protocol, released

in April, does not ensure that inmates are properly anesthetized before the lethal injection is administered…which could ‘result in a terrifying, excruciating death.”



Justice Delayed

The oft quoted adage, “Justice delayed is justice denied” (William E. Gladstone, British statesman and Prime Minister, 1868-1894), now pretty much applies to our entire system of capital punishment -

with death row inmates languishing in prisons for years on end while the legal process takes its ponderous course - in spite of the fact that the public continues to favor the death penalty by a margin of

better than two-to-one. (en.wikipedia.org


Abolishing The Death Penalty

“Many countries have abolished the death penalty, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, almost all of Europe and much of Latin America…111 countries either do not have or do not use the death

penalty. Many other states retain it, especially in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Caribbean and the United States…In most countries that have capital punishment, it is used to punish only murder

and/or for war-related crimes.  In some countries, like the People’s Republic of China, even non-violent crimes, like drug and business related crimes, are punished with capital punishment.”



Splitting Hairs

However, the arguments for and against capital punishment notwithstanding, splitting hairs about whether the condemned should or do suffer any pain whatsoever are irrational in my view.  It’s a position

that I believe is taken for purely tactical reasons, that is, merely to make the death penalty unenforceable by defining it as “cruel and unusual.”


Dead is dead, whether by a bullet to the back of the head, the guillotine or lethal injection. No one can say for certain just how much pain or suffering may be experienced at the moment of death, and

I suspect that most if not all of the 65% of Americans who favor capital punishment do not particularly care how it is carried out.  Arguing about which method is least painful seems nonsensical to me –

especially when the individual involved is someone like Ted Bundy, the BTK killer, Jeffrey Dahmer or any of the many other serial killers who murder innocent people without giving any thought to the

pain and suffering they caused in the process.


In the final analysis, belief in capital punishment seems to be more an article of faith than it is a matter of facts.  Both sides tend to give credence to the specific arguments that support their respective

views.  A leading news analyst often says that he is against capital punishment but that those who are convicted of “capital crimes” should be sentenced life in prison at hard labor, as in breaking rocks. 


© 2007-2013 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Posted at 21:34 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator