Taxes:  Who's For Them?

No one in his or her right mind could possibly like paying taxes. There are those who claim that it's a patriotic thing to do, but we think there are better ways of demonstrating our patriotism.

Taxes are a necessary "evil."  Running a government costs money, and all of us should pay for the benefits that we derive from that government.  The question arises "what benefits?" and that's where political parties are divided.

The Constitution states the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. . . ."

We all benefit from the "common Defence (sic)" but we may differ on just how much "general Welfare" each of us is entitled to.

The Founders recognized the danger of a strong central government, but that concern extends to any government, whether State or County or local.  When any government entity takes more money from its citizens than is needed to discharge its duties–such duties as those defined by the People, of course–the danger begins.  Just what are those duties that our taxes legitimately pay for?  Aye, there's the rub.

Republicans believe that a safety net should be available to our fellow citizens (and ourselves) when dire circumstances place our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy.  We also believe that providing a permanent lifestyle for able-bodied persons out of the pockets of hard-working, law-abiding citizens is not a safety net.  History has shown that providing "free" money, without work, results in loss of pride, loss of ambition, laziness, and loss of any pathway to respect.  It becomes a way of life.

We should not be party to that ill-conceived "solution."

The worst way of dealing with the poverty of the few is to redistribute the wealth of those who are working hard.  No such system of redistribution could possibly be designed or executed in a manner to be fair to the majority of citizens.  Quite distinct from the futility of such programs that perpetuate poverty as an acceptable lifestyle in some sub-cultures within the United States, the government is the least efficient organization to execute such a program.

The duties of government must remain limited.  Instead of creating another bureaucracy to deal with each social ill, government's role should be to encourage other approaches.  The resources and assets of government can be used to coordinate activities across jurisdictions, if asked to do so.  Government can provide temporary incentives or reduce impediments to entrepreneurship in pursuit of benefits to society.  These are the proper roles for government, if they exist at all in this context.

One should ask, at each opportunity when government at any level is seen to add another "duty" to its long list, "Why is government doing this?  Is there no better way other than to use the most expensive, least effective, most inefficient approach?"

Governments should be the best at responding to emergencies, but it isn't.  If it cannot do well what we need it to do, why should we turn to government for routine matters best handled by other mechanisms.

Government must be a last resort.  If that were the case, our taxes would be significantly reduced and prosperity would reign.