Hell Yeah!

Tax Death

Taxes.

Someone sent me a link to a tax resister website that peddled a DVD instructional on how to "never pay income taxes again!". The pitch started with a bit of history; a cabal of government crooks and megarich bankers (of that criminally-inclined class that, according to my favorite other-side writer ren, conceived and wrote our Constitution) gathered to concoct a scheme to soak the broad shoulders of America and make themselves vastly more wealthy by levying what they assert to be an unconstitutional tax on income.

There is definitely something to this. The courts bend over backwards to support the income tax, and they punish with incongruous severity the people who act in opposition to it.

An income tax is wrong, is targeted to the wrong people (those with less inevitably pay more), but I like most of my countrymen, have been conditioned to accept is as a necessary evil. We need government after all, and somebody has to pay for it.

Taxes are a big issue, and if current economic conditions are any indication, they will be a much bigger issue in time for the next election - particularly the AMT.

But does there need to be an income tax at all?

Of all the ideas I've seen, the one with the least traction is the one that makes the most sense to me (funny how that keeps happening!): Eliminate the income tax entirely for individuals and businesses, but levy a flat sales tax on all goods but necessities (milk, eggs, butter, meat, clothing under $110/item, home energy, etc.)

But luxury goods: brand-burdened sneakers, cars, jewelry, plasma TVs, Playstations, and so on.

One major benefit to this would be that billions in undergroud revenue would be brought into the legit stream. Consider a drug dealer who rakes in a million dollars a year selling meth. None of that is taxed now - nor would it be under a flat tax or any other scheme, But when he used his ill-gotten booty to buy a gold-plated rolls royce for a million dollars, his income would effectively be taxed, and what has otherwise been a total loss of billions of dollars to an underground economy, is brought into the legitimate stream.

Poor and thrifty people could entirely escape taxation. Wealthy people would pay more. As it should be.

This would be a bonanza for the credit card and service companies, yet could act as a sort of protectionism as foreign-made goods generate unimaginable revenue.

There will still be plenty for the IRS to do - underground trade will emerge to get around these taxes too - but at least there will be a constitutional mandate for government fundraising, and all the questions of the ethical and moral correctness of an income tax will be put to rest.

Hallfire rains on Indian Point

As promised, one of the first things John did upon arrival in Washington was begin to make trouble for the Indian Point Energy Center (IP).

In a move that has enraged advocates of nuclear power, Hall introduced a bill that will require an independent safety assessment of Indian Point - surely designed to expose problems and flaws that will warrant shutting it down.

Hall said "it would never have been sited here if the population 40 years ago was what it is today", noting that 8% of the population of the entire United States lives within the 50 mile kill zone that surrounds the plant.

Entergy spokesman Jim Steets says "if an independent study was done, I'm' sure we'd do very well on it".

A regular commenter, whose own blog (that I won't link to because it doesn't allow comments) defends IP well, criticizes the independent assessment as "an exercise in partisan attack futility".

Rep. Eliot Engel supports the independent study pointing out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can't do the job on it's own, saying "the NRC never met a nuclear plant they didn't like".

Meanwhile, I sit bemusedly watching, enjoying the posturing, withering criticism and great one-liners from both sides, I ask myself "what's the big deal with an independent safety assessment" before a creaky old powderkeg is relicensed for another thousand years?"

Given Entergy's steadfast position that IP is one of the safest nuke facilities in the world and all is well, why fight the ISA? Entergy should welcome the opportunity to put the debate to rest. Rather than pull a Saddam and kick inspectors out, they should throw open the doors to every inspector with even a casual interest, rather than risk the might of a hostile invader Congress bent on chasing them into a spider hole.

Entergy knows the no-nukes lobby is only going to grow stronger over the coming few years. If, and I mean IF, IP is really that safe, why the strident opposition to inspection?

It wasn't the left who coined the phrase "energy security" and forced energy to become a bona fide National Security Issue. It was the producers and their friends in DC who did that. Intended to mean oil, it naturally grew in scope to include nukes as well.

So as an exercise in ensuring our "energy security", putting the debate, finally, to rest around Indian Point, and easing the unease the 8% feels in the backs of their minds when they see the smoke and reactor domes, Entergy should embrace this opportunity for all it is worth.

Unless, I shudder to think, they have something to hide.