An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Abolish the IRS
To wit, it is time to abolish the IRS.
As Congressman Dave Camp has observed, the tax code of the United States is now ten times as long as the Bible, with none of the good news.
It is also exponentially more difficult to comply with, as there have been some 5,000 revisions made in the last dozen years. Even ancient scriptures, while challenging to willing spirits and weak flesh, can be counted on for constancy.It is axiomatic that in a free society, a law that renders comprehension and compliance impossible cannot be considered legitimate. No matter how eager citizens may be to contribute to the common purse, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, they can attain no certainty they have done so to Caesar’s satisfaction – and his dissatisfaction carries a severe cost.
Recent news that the Internal Revenue Service has been enforcing its already inscrutable doctrine with caprice and venom – directed at conservative groups, Republican donors, and supporters of Israel, among others – confirms the worst suspicions of many Americans, of all political affiliations.
There is a lot of talk in Washington, and across the country, of a desire to reach bipartisan accord and accomplish great things. Here is an opportunity for just that.
Over the course of several election cycles, what was once a fringe notion advanced by long-shot candidates (Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, please call your offices – or call each other, or call me, as you wish) has crept closer to the mainstream. To wit, it is time to abolish the IRS.
The very title, “Internal Revenue Service” contains multiple falsehoods. First off, the IRS is not solely concerned with revenues that are “Internal.” Anomalous among the nations of the world, America’s tax authority assumes for itself power over citizens, their families, and “US persons” living abroad, requiring them to file and pay taxes at US rates, even if they have not set foot on American soil in decades – or ever. “Taxation without representation,” indeed.
Wherever in the world your eyes find these words, the IRS very likely believes it has business with you. If you are married or related to an American, or in business with one, or if you have held US residency or even a visa at some time, the IRS can compel your financial institution to provide information on your assets and activities, threatening overwhelming sanctions for non-compliance.
Really, should the “Land of the Free” allow this mendacious and predatory agency to infect other nations in such a manner?
Second, the IRS has long since expanded beyond the concerns of mere “Revenue” to become the arbiter of almost every aspect of American life: free speech, charitable giving – even, Saints preserve us, health care.
The recent imbroglio, involving the slow-walking and hard-questioning on applications by right-of-center policy groups for tax-advantaged status, reminds us that America’s marketplace of ideas is overseen by government collectors. As columnist George Will notes, “Remember, all campaign ‘reform’ proposals regulate political speech. And all involve the IRS in allocating speech rights.”
Finally, the notion that the IRS offers a “Service” constitutes an absurdity of government-speak that would make Orwell guffaw, if there were any historical evidence that he was capable of doing so.
This fiction is usually exploded when an average citizen first hears from the IRS regarding questions they have or an audit they plan to conduct (and if you have not heard from the IRS, with the onset of Obamacare, buckle up).
That first contact will almost certainly be undersigned by a “Mr. Gossage” or a “Mrs. Vardebedian,” with no Christian name in sight, like a teacher writing their name on the blackboard on the first day of school. This introductory dynamic could only seem like a good idea to lifetime government hangers-on, benighted to the fact that in the real world, adults trust one another with their first names.
The effect is just silly, like a small child donning his father’s suit and shoes, shuffling around the house and demanding to be called “Mr.” before he’ll help tidy the rumpus room. But the intended message is unmistakable: We are in authority over you. Some “Service,” that.
And it is precisely that overbearing, ham-handed institutional culture that is evinced by this latest and growing scandal. The IRS initially claimed it was all the work of low-level employees in its Cincinnati office, undertaken without direction from senior staff or the Obama administration. This was obviously a lie from the first, if only because it presupposed professional initiative taken by career civil servants.
Confirmed reports of targeted audits, inappropriate questions and harassment emanating from at least three other IRS offices around the country have eviscerated this laughable line of defense.
But let us suppose it were true. Should a nominally free country countenance the harassment of its citizens, at home and abroad, by Mr. or Mrs. Cough-It-Up who, having overcome the unspeakable tragedy of having no given name, nevertheless demands to know everything about you?
It has only been 100 years since the United States ratified taxation of income. That’s considerably less than half of the nation’s lifetime (and lest we forget, the Republic came into being, in large measure, out of rebellion against unfair taxation), so let’s not get our aprons over our heads about making changes now.
This column would rather light a candle than curse the darkness. Herewith, therefore, are a couple of alternatives, offered for consideration:
First, toss the entire US tax code into the ocean (though someone tell Al Gore first, lest he begin shrieking when the sea level rises). Then, establish a small agency, charged with only one task: To withhold 15 percent of earned incomes over $50,000.
Assuming this sounds too much like a flat-tax prescription that would come from one of those Tea Party groups the IRS decided to hassle and stonewall in the first place, we can play with the numbers to get bipartisan buy-in. For instance, we could have two or three rates on a progressive scale – 10, 15, and 20 percent, let’s say – but once we agree, that’s it: no deductions, no investment or estate taxes, we’re done. Donate to whomever you wish, buy whatever health care you’d like (or not), and do so without tax benefit, but without tax bother, either.
Even if, as some may suggest, this route simply replaces one dysfunctional and malign agency with another, a new collections bureau with a minimalist mandate should take at least another 100 years to become as officious and unpleasant as today’s IRS, at which time we can discuss reform anew (watch this space).
But for the truly skeptical, perhaps a consumption tax is the thing. This has variously been advanced as a Fair or Value-Added Tax, and it is simply a levy on all transactions, usually proposed at 20 to 23 percent, that replaces income taxes altogether. This is reflexively denounced as “regressive” by the Left and the experience of Great Britain is instructive; specifically, instead of using the VAT to replace tax on income, as was proposed, authorities simply slapped the VAT on top of the UK’s already punitive rates.
Even so, a VAT necessitates that the more you spend, the more you pay. That seems straightforward enough, and it ensures the burden of funding government is carried by those most able to do so.
It is perhaps Victor Hugo’s best-known sentiment that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Hugo, who wrote timelessly and interminably on the vicissitudes of oppressive bureaucracy, included this aside in Les Miserables: “It may be said that there is one infallible thermometer of the public misery and riches— the cost of collecting the taxes.”
If that is true, and accepting Hugo’s attendant observations that such cost is inversely proportionate to overall economic health, why not make taxation simple and transparent for everyone?
One hopes he would agree that abolishing the IRS is an idea whose time has come.
This post originally appeared in The Daily Caller.
Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo @theocaldwell.com
Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!
As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.
A new method promises to capture an elusive dark world particle.
- Scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) devised a method for trapping dark matter particles.
- Dark matter is estimated to take up 26.8% of all matter in the Universe.
- The researchers will be able to try their approach in 2021, when the LHC goes back online.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
- As a stand-up comedian, Pete Holmes knows how words can manipulate audiences — for good and bad.
- Words aren't just words. They stich together our social fabric, helping establish and maintain relationships.
- Holmes has a clever linguistic exercise meant to bring you closer to the people around you.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.