My Suggestion for an Alternative Tax Collection Process

                How informed are you when it comes to paying your taxes?  I fear many Americans grumble and complain a little just to be polite, but if asked could not say exactly how much they paid in taxes last year.  I strongly suspect most people filing a 1040 long form only take note of line 76.  They write their check for that amount, or worse yet, rejoice that that government is going to give them that amount.

                First, the government is not “giving” you the amount on line 76.  They are “refunding” money you gave them that exceeded your obligation.  In other words, they withheld too much from your paycheck, and now they are giving it back to you without interest.  It is not a gift.  And it doesn’t mean you didn’t pay taxes.  (I don’t even want to get started on the notion of Earned Income Credits).  Of course, about 40% of those filing a return pay nothing to support the federal government or actually get money from the federal government instead of having to contribute to the cause.  But, unless you are one of those in that 40%, you aren’t getting a gift.

                Second, the amount you write on the check to send in with your 1040 is generally not the entire amount of taxes you paid for the year.  That is just the amount of money you still owe after the IRS already deducted a bunch.  They didn’t take enough, so they want more.

                Finally (sort of), the taxes you contribute to the federal and state governments are not the only taxes you paid last year.  I also paid about 8% for every dollar I earned every time I purchased something at the store.  That’s 8% on a dollar that has already been taxed by the federal and state governments.  Depending on where you live, you may or may not have to pay taxes for groceries.  But you will pay an additional tax for alcohol, and maybe for things like imported foods, candy bars, and soft drinks.  You also paid special taxes every time you filled the gas tank.  In California, some of that is supposed to go to maintaining our roads, but somehow it occasionally gets diverted.  Tax has become such a disgusting word to some people, so often you will pay a “fee” instead of a tax for things like fire protections districts.  If you own property, you paid property taxes and perhaps taxes to special districts and money to pay off voter-approved bonds.  So, don’t think for a moment that the check you wrote to the IRS or state government is what you paid in taxes last year.

                Now, lest you think I am some sort of anarchist or tax evader, let me explain why I believe it is important that we all think about this matter of taxes.  The federal government alone has more than a $17 trillion dollar debt (http://www.usdebtclock.org/).  That means each of us taxpayers would have to pony up about $152,000 to pay it off.  But since our elected officials are spending about $626 billion dollars more than we are all contributing every year, the debt relieve we would experience by paying it off would be short-lived.  I would love to see the debt paid off completely, as I strive to do with my personal finances.  But why bother if it’s just going to balloon again?

                I also don’t mind paying taxes if that money goes to effectively running the government so I and my family are protected from those who would harm us, the infrastructure I need is built and maintained, and other essential services are provided.  My gripe is that I know many of my tax contributions are being wasted or stolen.  My money is being used by government employees to attend lavish conventions that are probably not essential to them performing their jobs.  My money is being used to help foreign governments figure out how Sesame Street characters can be adapted to their cultures.  My money is being spent on determining if Japanese quail are more likely to be amorous while high on cocaine.  My money is being used to pay people to target specific groups for denial of tax exempt status simply because the groups are perceived to be in opposition to the current administration.  My money is being spent on determining why chimps throw their poop around.  I suspect they are just aping politicians they’ve seen on TV.

                I have a proposal that will never be seriously considered by any elected official.  I call it the Truth In Taxing Act.  Here’s how it would work.  First, taxes would no longer be due on April 15^th.  They would be due on the Tuesday before the first Monday in November.  Election day is on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

                Second, every single person over the age of 18, whether they worked or not, whether they owe any taxes or not, would have to write the following information on an official form:  The total amount they earned the previous fiscal year.  The total amount of money the government is keeping or demanding.  The percentage of their total income they are contributing to the government.  Then they would have to sign the form and write a check for what they still owe.  If they are getting an Earned Income Credit, they would have to sign a thank-you card to the 60% who are supporting them.

                Just an idea.  

Whatever Became of Justice?

                Justice is slowly disappearing.  In 1973, Karl Menninger wrote a book entitled Whatever Became of Sin?  The title is worth the cost of the book.  His primary message was that things that were once considered evil, or wrong, or contemptible had begun to be deemed as sicknesses that by and large are not the perpetrator’s fault.  In the forty years since that publication, that trend has only increased in pervasiveness.  Right and wrong have been replaced by “my truth and your truth.”  Criminals are now victims of society, in need of understanding and rehabilitation.  So, whatever became of justice?

                Now, I am all for rehabilitation, but not until justice has been served.  Justice?  What’s that?  An old-fashioned idea that when a wrong has been committed a price needs to be paid.  Property damage caused by negligence needs to be compensated appropriately.  Infliction of physical harm must result in some time away from society.  Theft, be it burglary or Wall Street slight-of-hand, ought to result in both compensation and jail time.  It shouldn’t always be about rehabilitation.  It ought to be enough to simply punish an evil person, to extract a payment for an unacceptable deed.  Justice needs to be enacted simply because it is the “just,” or right, thing to do.

                Even if Menninger was right about the idea of right and wrong having boarded a train bound for yesteryear, there remains a legal code specifying various consequences for behavior still deemed unacceptable by a wimpy society.  The problem we are now faced with concerns the execution of that legal code and it’s consequences.  We are plagued by activist judges who believe they have the right, even the duty to override law enacted by the people in order to implement their own misguided ideas of justice.  Sometimes, of course, they have ulterior motives that include pandering to cronies, getting re-elected, or padding their re-election checking accounts.

                Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden must be a misguided soul.  I imagine she actually believes she is doing the “right” thing; that she is a sympathetic, caring person who uses her high office to be kind to the wayward souls brought before her bench.  Either that, or she has some ulterior motive.  Recently, this Delaware judge sentenced Robert H. Richards IV to eight years suspended jail time, meaning he will never sleep a night in prison.  He will have to check in with his probation officer  every month, but he will serve no jail time.  Why?  Because Judge Jurden believes he “would not fare well” in prison.

                I have several objections to this sentence.  Let me begin with the least important and work my way up to the only issue that should matter.  First, since when is anyone supposed to “fare well” in prison?  Since when is the perpetrator’s well-being more important than the person or persons harmed by his actions, or those who might be harmed by him in the future?  Being locked up is for the punishment and/or rehabilitation of the offender, and to keep society safe, at least for a few years, while that criminal is kept off the streets.  I really don’t care how a convicted felon “fares” in prison.  If he can’t do the time, he shouldn’t commit the crime.  And if he is a threat to others, he needs to be separated from all of us who understand the need to follow some basic laws, especially those that prohibit the harming of others.

                Second, there is some speculation that Mr. Richards IV may have been given special consideration because he is an incredibly wealthy member of the famous du Pont family.  There is no way of knowing for sure what Judge Jurden’s motives were, but there is no doubt that an appearance of evil exists concerning her sentencing of this very influential man.  Justice is supposed to be blind to prejudices concerning race, gender, national origin, and financial status, among other considerations.  Those little statues of Lady Justice present in so many courthouses should depict her wearing a blindfold and holding scales that are equal.  Adding to the appearance of evil is the fact that the state of Delaware never disclosed any details about the trial.  We only know about it because the now-former Mrs. Richards IV is suing her ex-husband.  How can any of us not at least wonder if this man’s sentence was so unbelievably light simply because of who he is?

                Third, and the one reason that ought to be able to stand alone, it is generally accepted, and has been since the days of Old Testament law, that a person’s punishment should fit the crime.  That is the very definition of justice: the quality of being just, or fair.  Of course, if that word “punishment” has been stricken from courthouse considerations, this adage is somewhat meaningless anyway.  But, I believe most people still hold to this basic belief.  There are misdemeanors and felonies.  There are stiffer penalties for deliberate acts than for negligent acts.  Sentences increase with society’s view of the seriousness of the crime.  This assumes a value system, as loosely defined as it may be, that assigns graduated values to the victims and corresponding punishments for the offenders.  Mr. Richard’s sentence, eight years of monthly probation visits, court-ordered mental health care and a fine of $4,395 (chump change for a du Pont), indicates society places a low value on the victim’s loss.  If it was deemed a serious crime, the punishment would be proportionately serious.  That was justice is, right?

                What was the crime to which he freely confessed?  He raped his three-year-old daughter.  And his ex-wife claims he also molested their son.  He raped a little girl, so he gets to check in with his probation officer once a month.  Justice?  It certainly cannot be defined by the outcome of this case.  How much is that little girl’s safety and mental/emotional future worth?  Not much, apparently.  She will have to live the rest of her life with the effects of what this male person (he’s not a real “man”) did to her.  Her future spouse and their children will have to live with the effects of this guy’s actions as well.

                But, rest easy America, he won’t be sent to prison where he “would not fare well.”  He is safe from the old-fashioned idea of fair and impartial punishment that fits the crime.  The progressive definition of “justice” has been meted out.  Thank you, Judge Jurden for protecting Robert H. Richards IV from any hardship as a consequence of his raping of a three-year-old girl.  We all feel better now.