Taxes have always been viewed by Americans as a burden to be controlled and limited. The imposing of taxes on Britain’s American colonies without the colonies having any input into the tax decisions and no recourse for opposing them was a major factor leading up to the American revolution. One of the earliest acts of revolutionary resistance was the Boston Tea Party in which colonists painted as Indians (Native Americans) raided British merchant ships and dumped their cargo of fine Indian (from India) Tea into the harbor, thus denying the crown and British merchants any revenue from the lost cargo.
A number of points in the U.S. Constitution specifically limit the Federal Governments power over both the states and the individual citizen, including controls and limits on Federal Taxes. The Founding Fathers intended that most taxes would be assessed and collected by the lowest levels of government, where the people have the greatest control. They would be appalled at the vast size of our Federal government and the resulting huge tax burden. They might also take issue with the tax burden from even the state and local governments, since through the years, particularly in the last century our governments have invented, or had imposed on them by Federal and State laws, a great increase these locally controlled taxes. One of the principals that was strictly adhered to in the first half-century of the nation, was that tax money was not to be used for the benefit of individual citizens, nor for charity; those were things that the community was expected to take care of by other means. Neighbors were expected to come together to aid each other with donations of both work and monetary consideration to help those dealing with misfortune or tragedy.
One of the local taxing methods that I find particularly distasteful is the property tax. Taxes based on the value of property are bad for several reasons. They add to the burden of owning a home or a business, making it more difficult to own property. It adds to the overhead cost of a business making less likely to succeed. Property taxes provide a disincentive for increasing the quality of property, since improving property increases its value, thus increasing the taxes placed on it. They also are susceptible to the fluctuations in market, making it an unpredictable source on which to make fiscal budget projections; this is a major cause of Arizona’s recent budget revenue shortfalls. In a free society ownership of homes and businesses is both one of the greatest measures of success and an indicator of a dependable future. Once a person has paid for his property, or has a meaningful equity in property, they should be able to be confident that they will continue to own that property without the government holding it hostage for taxes. Because of property tax, if an owner comes on economic hard times for whatever reason, their property can be seized and sold at auction for taxes. That means that the property never actually belongs to them, because the government can take it from them. Ones property should be free from both taxation and seizure.
The question could be asked, “Then how would such things as schools, fire districts, sewer districts, etc. be financed?” First the percentage of the total state and local taxes that comes from property tax is a fairly small percent. Most of the revenues are raised by sales tax and income tax. The property tax could be done away with by simply shifting the exact same level of taxing from property to other taxes. The net change in taxation would be zero. It would also reduce the government overhead, by doing away with the whole government assessment of property value, so by that would lower government cost.
This method of consolidating and simplifying our tax structure will help to lower government costs, so will lower the demand for taxes. The concept could be applied to the full range of taxes, bringing about a more equitable, smaller, less expensive system of taxation. In the case of the property tax, doing away with it will give a property owner actual right to his property so that even in complete economic disaster they would not lose their property. They would still own their assets, and would still have a roof over their head.
No comments:
Post a Comment