How about a tax on politicians instead?
It’s a bad week to be a taxpayer. (But then is there ever a good week?) Jacques Chirac is pushing suggesting a new global tax (perhaps to pay for global testing?) as reported by Wizbang and Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog. Virginia delegates are pushing “a 5 percent across-the-board state tax on telecommunications services including landline and wireless phone service, voice-over-the-Internet service, cable-TV and satellite-TV service and more” reported by Reporterette.
And “lawmakers trying to plump up the bottom line are considering a ‘vanity tax’ on cosmetic surgery and Botox injections in Washington, Illinois and other states as reported by Truck and Barter and Libertarian Girl (who seems supportive of the idea herself?).
Well, as long as it’s time for new tax suggestions, I’ve got one. Let’s tax politicians. At the federal level, I propose the following new tax. Take the current federal debt plus this years interest plus this years budget deficit divide by 535 and tax each member of the House and Senate that amount. Alternatively, we could include federal judges, ambassadors, Cabinet secretaries and the President and Vice-President. Now that’s a lot of money, I know, and certainly would be a burden if they paid it personally. I have no objection to letting the lobbyists pay the tax for them. Instead of begging the unions, the tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical industry for campaign contributions, they can ask them to pay their tax bill. The special interests want to be represented – fine, let them really pay for the privilege.
I have another idea, but it requires giving up direct election of our representatives. Take the entire federal expenditures plus an amount toward debt reduction divvy it up and auction off the House and Senate seats with that amount, roughly $4 billion, as the starting bid on a seat for one year. And then eliminate all federal taxes. That’s serious tax reform. If we opened bidding up to Japanese businessmen and Arab oilmen, we could even shoot for a negative tax burden and the Chinese bought the Presidency twice, so would it be that big a change?
Okay, so maybe those ideas are extreme, but here’s a nice moderate (Modest?) proposal. A new Stamp Act requiring that any bill, petition, initiative, letter or communication of any sort entered in the public record and calling for an increase in taxes or spending requires a stamp that costs, say, $100,000. A Congressman proposes a soak-the-rich tax increase? Let him cut a check for $100,000. A Senator wants a new military base in his district? $100,000 and it can be debated.