The Mythical "Fair" Tax

Many today, even in libertarian circles, argue in favor of the "Fair" tax recently proposed by Congress. While a portion might say that the IRS is unfair and unjust in its function, those who argue in favor of this new tax miss a greater point: Taxes are never "fair;" they redistribute wealth from producers without their consent to non-producers.

If you disagree with the assessment that all tax recipients are non-producers, think about something:

• Is an IRS agent a producer of wealth?
• Is a Congressman a producer of wealth?
• Is a welfare recipient a producer of wealth?

Of course, in all three cases any sensible person would answer, no, and in all three cases, the persons in question are all beneficiaries of tax revenue.

Another group, however, might prove difficult to accept as part of the tax burden:

• Is a public school teacher a producer of wealth?
• Is a farmer who receives subsidies not to plant crops a producer of wealth?
• Is a construction worker on a government highway project a producer of wealth?
• Is the upstanding local sheriff or honest city cop a producer of wealth?
• Is a U.S. Marine a producer of wealth?

Most people would decry me as a villain for even asking the question of the above five, and even some of the stoutest conservatives will balk at my inclusion of the last three or four, arguing that sthey provide "invaluable services" and are part of the "backbone of America," but let's look at it from a purely financial perspective.

When acting in their described capacities, every one of the above individuals receives wealth he did not himself create.

• The public schoolteacher, no matter how many children learn to read, write or calculate, at the end of the day walks away with a portion of somebody else's money.
• The subsidized farmer, whether he milks his cows or leaves them waiting, enjoys the fruits of another man's efforts.
• The interstate highway builder might toil for the money he receives, but he has not created one iota of wealth in so doing, only receiving the benefits of wealth redistribution.
• The police officer who performs his duties with greatest care and shuns grafts is still a thief, picking the pockets of those he "protects and serves."
• The U.S. soldier, "defending" the nation against threats both real and imagined, in the truest sense has fewer scruples than the mercenary who renders a service to protect at a price without the slick veneer of "serving God and country."

In none of these circumstances is the money given in a voluntary exchange, instead extracted at the tip of a saber or muzzle of a gun. There is no virtue in theft, and whether the willing participants in the theft or simply the beneficiaries of such crime there can be only one solution, restitution.

Whether it seems "fair" or not, the billionaire industrialist is entitled to seek the restoration of his stolen riches, even if it means sacrificing the "paltry wages" of any of those government employees listed above. He earned his money through shrewd investment, planning and undertaking risks. The others did none of this and made no agreement with him to exchange their work for his money. They were not in his employ, try how they might to justify the societal "need" for their positions. The real solution, then, is to end welfare, both corporate and personal.
Taxes are the elan vital of a government, thus it is both fair and just to stop the beating heart of the beast by opening its veins and ending the involuntary circulation of funds from those who produce to those who do not. Even if this means the dislocation of millions of workers within the public sector, the resulting private sector jobs would more than exceed both the quantity and quality of those lost. Even if those jobs never materialized, though, what right has any man to take for himself what another man has earned honestly?

--M.A. Hargett