It astonishes me that people continually believe that they have the right to tell others how much and where to spend their money. What’s even more astonishing is that almost everyone that I’ve said this to denies that it happens, and yet it continues to be so and most don’t even realize the evil that this represents nor that they represent the evil. The explanation of my moral position isn’t that difficult: First, no one should have the right to tell others how, how much and when to spend their money let alone taking it by force and spending it as they wish. Second, just because the majority wants something, it doesn’t mean that it’s right. Third, there are certain things that should not be voted on; things that are inalienable rights. Fourth, what one earns, they earned through their own effort and no one else should take credit for it or try to share in it without the freely given consent and approval of the one who earned it. Fifth, we are all interconnected, but not the way most people think. Sixth, slavery or indentured servitude, no matter what form it comes in, no matter how it is manifested or forced on people, it is immoral, wrong, and despicable. Seventh, it doesn’t matter how noble the cause, if the source of money is ill-gotten or immorally gained then the cause that you’re trying to help becomes immoral and worthless, because knowingly receiving and spending stolen money is immoral. Eighth, that which is legal (segregation laws) isn’t always moral and that which is moral (e.g., Civil Rights protests) isn’t always legal.

The first question that must be answered is who owns the money that someone earns. Some people believe that the money the rich earn isn’t just through their own efforts and that they “owe” a lot of it to “society.” OK, let’s say they are right. How is it that the rich didn’t earn their money on their own and owe society, while the poor don’t and, given that our society is made-up of individuals, who exactly do the rich owe? Who in our society were exploited without just compensation by the rich, some of who started poor, and why do the poor not owe the same people? The fact of the matter is that no one owes anything to anyone else, unless it is freely and mutually agreed to. If someone was forced to help another, regardless of compensation, use of force to compel another is immoral, no matter what the cause. On the other hand, if by some miracle it can be proven that the rich do owe something to society then it would be impossible to make the case that the poor don’t. This means that the poor must pay their fair share of taxes, which they currently don’t. Don’t forget that the top 1% make only ~17% of the income, but pay for ~37% of income taxes at a tax rate of some 24% and the top 10% make only ~43% of income, but pay over 70% of all income taxes at a rate of some 18%, while the bottom 50% (69MM people) hardly pay any taxes: 2.3% of income taxes at a tax rate of some 1.9%, while making almost 14% of the income.

The problem with the current so called “progressive” tax system, which is anything but progressive, is that it forces the rich to work for the poor. This is indentured service at best and slavery at worst. And what’s worse is that this so called “progressive” tax system prays on the desire of the wealthier segment to do better for themselves and their progeny, enjoy the best things in life and provide for their family. As completely ludicrous as it may seem, the ultimate argument from the proponents of the so called “progressive” tax is that “if you don’t want to pay the higher taxes, don’t make as much money.” Regardless, the current tax system is grossly unfair to the rich and highly generous to the poor, particularly in view of the fact that the poor receive many benefits that the wealthier segment of our society pays for but can’t get access to. Some clever liberals/socialists have argued that the rich get benefits from the government, but fail to actually name that which is of benefit to the rich, but not to the poor or they name stupid things like capital gains and dividend tax rates, deductions for charity or tax loop holes that are illegal and have been shut-down or would be if it were revealed.

The other insidious aspect of this so called “progressive” tax system is that there is no absolute hurdle or barrier where someone can say with absolute certainty that enough is truly enough. As an example, if it isn’t enough that the top 10% who earns 43% of income and pay almost 71% of income taxes at a rate of some 18% isn’t enough then is it enough if they pay a tax rate of 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 50%, 66%, 75%, 80% oh hell why not 90% or 99%? When is enough, enough? When do the top 10% pay their so called “fair share” in the eyes of the liberals/socialists? I’ve never gotten a straight answer from any of the liberals/socialists: They always say that that isn’t the point and 99% is an extreme and no one’s talking about extremes. Then they try to turn around the issue and ask me what I think is fair, snickering, while they ask me hoping to trap me into a similar position. So, predictable and laughable.

What is fair is to take such random issues out of the equation, minimize the taxes for all and make sure that the poor pay their fair share too. And, discussions of affordability and need should not be made into issues as they are irrelevant. If affordability and need were to be the standards for reasoning and determining what should and should not be paid for by whom then it opens up a lot of issues that people aren’t going to want to talk about or defend. For example, just because someone needs a kidney shall we take it from a healthy human because they can afford to lose one? This would be a preposterous argument that no one would buy, yet people argue affordability all the time showing how inconceivably inconsistent and blind people are in choosing their arguments, which is not only one of the signs of why and how are society is in decay, but also one of the root causes of good intended people doing evil things, i.e., the inability for people to think properly causes many ills in our society.

What we need is a tax system that is fair to everyone and that which minimizes the tax burden overall for everyone. Also, we must maximize capital available to invest and grow our country’s economic might (this is how we are in it together), not drain it away into never ending bottomless pits that drown our society in ever increasing loads of debt. The socialist experiment must be terminated forever. And, to develop a more fair tax system, we must also eliminate the “them vs. us” class warfare that the liberals/socialists have been waging on the wealthier segments of our society. Most importantly Justice must be served.

Therefore, we must eliminate all social programs from government spending and limit our tax collections to paying for only self-defense, infrastructure and education. At least in my mind, these three things tie to and help to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all the people of the USA. By my estimation, if all 138 million tax payers were to make an average tax payment of $15,000 per year, we’d raise about $2.1 trillion per year, which should be more than enough money to cover spending for the three essentials and pay down significant amounts of federal debt. However, since some do not even make $15,000 per year, we have to be concerned about how we raise the funds; regardless, everyone should pay at least 10% of their income in taxes.

For more, please read my books, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at and also available on Kindle, and “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at and also available on Kindle. Please don’t forget to rate this post. Any comments or questions are welcome and can be left for me on this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at Thank you in advance for buying my books, and rating this post. And, thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you get an opportunity to read my other posts. Have a great day!