I ran into this gem of a bill through a letter to the editor in the local liberal paper. I think I'll write my Representative to vote against this. This is being pushed by the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. Here's the declaration of the act:
But beyond the obvious, the formation of an alternative fund that doesn't go into supporting of the military is just astoundingly short sighted. First, why should individuals get to decide where their taxes are spent? Does this also allow for the individuals who don't want to pay for the military won't benefit from the protections? Not likely. I'd expect that they will still demand all the protections.
What about the other special interest groups that will want their taxes placed in restricted fund pools? What about groups who don't want to fund welfare, social security, or medicare? Should they get a special funding pool? What about those people that don't support Planned Parenthood? How about people that don't want their taxes spent in California?
Taxes aren't pleasant, but they fund the government and the society that it represents and organizes. If micro-minorities get a choice of where to spend or not to spend their taxes, then the country will stop functioning smoothly. This is why the country is a republic where the representatives of the majority get to decide where funding is spent.
Overall, this is a bill that should be stomped out ASAP.
To affirm the religious freedom of taxpayers who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war, to provide that the income, estate, or gift tax payments of such taxpayers be used for nonmilitary purposes, to create the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax payments to improve revenue collection, and for other purposes.Nice sentiment in a utopian world, but just bloody foolish in this one. Let's look at the premise in the bill regarding conscientious objectors:
Conscientious objection to participation in military service based upon moral, ethical, or religious beliefs is recognized in Federal law, with provision for alternative service; but no such provision exists for taxpayers who are conscientious objectors who must labor for many weeks each year to pay taxes and to support military activities which violate their deeply held beliefs.Personally, I find conscientious objectors to be questionable at best. The premise isn't far off the concept of pacifism. It also provides an interesting excuse not to defend yourself or the rest of your country. Alternate service means you don't have to put your ass on the line to protect the freedoms and benefits that you so happily take for granted.
But beyond the obvious, the formation of an alternative fund that doesn't go into supporting of the military is just astoundingly short sighted. First, why should individuals get to decide where their taxes are spent? Does this also allow for the individuals who don't want to pay for the military won't benefit from the protections? Not likely. I'd expect that they will still demand all the protections.
What about the other special interest groups that will want their taxes placed in restricted fund pools? What about groups who don't want to fund welfare, social security, or medicare? Should they get a special funding pool? What about those people that don't support Planned Parenthood? How about people that don't want their taxes spent in California?
Taxes aren't pleasant, but they fund the government and the society that it represents and organizes. If micro-minorities get a choice of where to spend or not to spend their taxes, then the country will stop functioning smoothly. This is why the country is a republic where the representatives of the majority get to decide where funding is spent.
Overall, this is a bill that should be stomped out ASAP.
No comments:
Post a Comment