“Would a tax cut be good for the economy?” Economists
are having their usual eye-glazing debate over this question, without
bothering to define their terms. The Bush administration wants to cut
taxes a little tiny bit over the next decade, insisting it will help “the
economy”; their opponents say that even a little tiny tax cut
could hurt “the economy.”
What do they mean by the economy? Is it a single thing, or a whole
lot of disparate things lumped together into a misleading abstraction?
The first thing to notice is that Americans didn’t use to talk
this way. In the first century of the U.S. Government’s existence,
when Federal budgets were in the millions, not trillions, taxes were
very low, the country prospered as no other country had, individual
freedom was unprecedented, and Europeans flocked here. There was no
welfare state; the immigrants didn’t come to live off the taxpayer,
but to reap rewards for their own efforts in a system of free exchange.
Nobody spoke of a monolithic “economy” as the government’s
During the Civil War the Lincoln administration imposed the first
national income tax. The rates were low, 3 to 5 per cent. After the
war the tax was ruled unconstitutional. Eventually the Sixteenth Amendment,
ratified in 1913, gave the Federal Government a court-proof power to
impose taxes on income. But the rates were still, at first, low: a
single man with no dependents had to make $50,000 a year (in today’s
money) before he paid 1 per cent in taxes. The top rate was 7 per cent.
Prescient voices warned, however, that the Amendment gave the Federal
Government a potentially limitless power to tax; moreover, it created
new possibilities of tyranny, by making every U.S. citizen directly
answerable to the Federal Government for his personal finances. An
intrusive bureaucracy would result, eliminating privacy.
The worst scenarios have been surpassed. Today the ordinary taxpayer
pays at rates higher than the Rockefellers and Morgans used to pay.
Add in state and local taxes, and we now pay nearly half our income
to the government. This is to say nothing of downright illegal abuses,
like using the tax bureaucracy to target political opponents of presidents.
And the Federal courts have ruled that the taxpayer, in his dealings
with that bureaucracy, doesn’t enjoy the full protection of the
Bill of Rights against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.
If Americans had realized what the Sixteenth Amendment would entail,
it would never have been ratified. It has inured us to a new form of “involuntary
servitude” — not to private masters, but to the government.
The courts have never recognized taxation, however onerous, as “involuntary
servitude” as forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment. So even
if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in
its eyes, a slave!
Such matters, alas, don’t interest the economists who tangle
themselves in arguments over whether a tax cut would be “good
for the economy.” They have no criteria for judging whether taxes
are unjust to the people who pay them. They acknowledge no moral limits
on the taxing power. They only know it can be dangerous to “the
economy” to let people keep too much of their own money. In principle,
all our earnings seem to belong to the government. And pragmatic “experts” are
at hand to warn it against excessive generosity to us.
Perish the thought that the government already takes far too much
from us, that it spends our money for unconstitutional purposes, that
it heaps debt on politically defenseless future generations. The Sixteenth
Amendment is one of the few parts of the U.S. Constitution the government
still takes seriously, construing its taxing power as broadly as possible — so
broadly, in fact, as to nullify the rest of the Constitution.
A century ago Hilaire Belloc predicted the emergence of “the
Servile State” — a social order in which some men are systematically
forced by the state to support others. That is what a limitless taxing
power leads to, and has already led to: a “soft” servitude,
in which liberty is hardly more than a legal fiction and the slaves
of the state barely sense what they have lost.
How unfair of Bush’s opponents to accuse him of trying to restore
too much of our freedom! Even if he gets his way, there is no danger
that Americans will be as free as they were in 1913. Neither party
Copyright © 2012 by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved. This column was published originally
by Griffin Internet Syndicate on January 7, 2003.
Joe Sobran was an author and a syndicated columnist. See bio
and archives of some of his columns.
Watch Sobran's last TV appearance on YouTube.
Learn how to get a tape of his last speech
during the FGF Tribute to Joe Sobran in December 2009.
To subscribe to or renew the FGF E-Package, or support the writings of Joe
Sobran, please send a tax-deductible donation to the:
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
P.O. Box 1383
or subscribe online.