Tammy Bruce: Beware the Pumpkin Police

Beware the Pumpkin Police

Assume the position!

A post by Maynard

"The power to tax is the power to destroy"
—John Marshall
Chief Justice of the United States, 1801-1835

Tammy mentioned this article about how Iowa applies sales tax to pumpkins but not to food. This silly little news item illustrates a fundamental problem with any taxing authority.

Like it or not, we mostly agree that taxes are a necessary evil. Unless we want to abolish government, then a functioning administration requires money. And, human nature being what it is, that money must be seized from the people by an authority with coercive powers.

Okay, so we're stuck with taxes. Then there arise questions of social engineering, combined with pragmatism and moral considerations. We want to grab taxes from "excess" (whatever that is) funds. We don't want to take the bread out of people's mouths.

A small, but typical, example is this situation in Iowa. Food is exempted from sales tax in order to allow people to purchase life's basic necessities unhindered. Who could argue with that?

But then we're stuck with defining "food". And then we get into grey areas, such as whether a Halloween pumpkin is tax-free "food" or a taxable "ornament". And so, by following this series of reasonable, logical, moral steps, we get to this point of absurd insanity:

The Iowa Department of Revenue decided that pumpkins are used primarily for Halloween decorations, not food, and should be taxed. Previously, they had been considered an edible squash and exempted from the tax. Iowans planning to eat pumpkins can still get an exemption from the sales tax, if they fill out the "Iowa Sales Tax Exemption Certificate" form.

In other words, you are required to file legal paperwork with the government regarding how you intend to use your pumpkin.

I wish this were a frivolous example. But it's not. In fact, we've completely lost our privacy to the tax authorities. We're required to explain and justify every dollar we receive. Our banks report our transactions to the government, just as we are required to report who we've paid. If there are any questions or discrepancies, we are assumed guilty, and we're stuck with the burden of proving our innocence. If you've ever received an inquiry from the IRS, you know what I mean.

Okay, let's not carry this too far. I'm not about to join the ranks of anti-tax extremists (such as this guy or this organization) because 1) As I said, I understand the need for taxes, and 2) These guys eventually end up in jail. But I'd prefer we move to a minimally simple tax code (such as is advocated by FairTax.org), along with a government that's slightly less ambitious about solving all our problems. The quest for social engineering via big government may be noble, but it inevitably leads to a midnight visit from the jack-o-lantern-booted Pumpkin Police.

Posted by Maynard · November 1, 2007 05:16 PM · Permalink
Big Government | Gestapo | Maynard Post

Comments

Since I agree with you, I'll just be a hair-splitting pedantic lawyer:

"Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835"

The Associate Justices are "of the Supreme Court," but the Chief Justice is "Chief Justice of the United States." That's because the CJ doesn't just run the court, but is the head of the entire federal judicial branch, has administrative duties with respect to the federal courts as a whole, and of course formally represents the judiciary in their relations with the other branches (most notably by lobbying Congress, usually for money).

[Wow, you can't get away with anything here! I've made the correction you noted! —Maynard]

Posted by: Dave J at November 1, 2007 05:47 PM

gesh, I hope they don't catch on to the many uses of, ahem, cucumbers...

Posted by: claudia in ny at November 2, 2007 10:47 AM

Hi, wonder if anyone can help me out with how "money must be seized from the people by an authority with coercive powers" is consistent with "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Jefferson goes on to say that a government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

My problem is that "consent" seems incompatible with "coercive powers". I know we have elections, but how can others who are "equal" to me have "coercive powers"? I know you're "not about to join the ranks of anti-tax extremists", but wasn't it the great Republican statesman Barry Goldwater who said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"? Lastly, for someone who supports the position that there is, in fact RIGHT and WRONG, it seems to me "taxes are a necessary evil" is a pretty morally relativistic position. What do you think?

Posted by: TANSTAAFL at November 8, 2007 09:45 PM

By Category

By Month

Beware the Pumpkin Police

Comments

Post a comment