FAIR TAXATION, NOT STATUS QUO by Peter Moss Most people believe that taxes are mainly, or only, to pay for government operations. Since most people have learned to distrust, or even hate, government, they believe that the least government and the least taxation is best. Tax justice and tax fairness groups invariably harp on these two themes, and have the unanimous support of the rich who are really the only ones to benefit from least government and least taxes. Their "success" is undeniable: corporations used to pay over 30 percent of the national tax burden, while currently they pay a single digit percentage, about 6 percent. Only tax mavens notice this; other tax payers pay no attention partly because this reduction is not much publicized by the corporate media, and partly because they feel they cannot do anything about it anyway. This public attitude is erroneous in two basic ways: it is untrue, and it unnecessarily self-inflicts damage on the unrich. Notice that alcoholic beverages are taxed, while milk is not. This implies a social value judgment: milk is wholesome and non-addictive. Alcohol is addictive and deleterious. Or for another example: cigarette taxes are raised continuously, recognizing that cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease, and legislators hope to tax tobacco out of business eventually. The other basic error in public attitude is that nothing can be done about tax injustice. The fact that no single taxpayer alone can change tax injustice does not mean that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens cannot reduce or eliminate tax injustice. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever can or will. And the logical place to replace tax injustice with tax justice is to elect candidates committed to tax justice. For example: Only a very few people know that ordinary people are second class citizens when it comes to tax accounting. Individuals and small businesses must calculate taxes on their gross income. Not so corporations. In corporate accounting, the gross is sales, from which are deducted "cost of goods" which includes raw materials, labor, utilities, maintenance, depreciation, and a lot of other items. The difference between sales and cost of goods is gross profit, from which corporations deduct more items like research, marketing, administration, etc. That leads to taxable income or profit, which is then used for dividends and retained earnings. But wait a minute: does not the employee or wage earner also have to pay for the cost of his labor, such as food, shelter, health care, transportation, education, and vacation before he can sell his labor for salaries or wages? And if corporations can deduct their costs to figure taxable income, why should employees and small businesses not be able to deduct the costs of their labor to calculate taxable income? The obvious objection by corporations and their supporters is that the individual does not have an accounting department, and the Internal Revenue Service is not staffed to audit the individual's costs before selling his labor. This is of course of false excuse because we know quite well what the average cost is. According to a study of Vermont state tax returns, the median income for a married family filing a joint return was $53,509 in 2002. It is safe to say that such a family's costs were around $50,000, leaving $3,500 for savings. Accordingly, if I am elected, I will introduce a tax law to increase the federal exemption, now $10,450, to $50,000, and pay tax only on any family income above $50,000. This will immediately exempt half the population from federal taxes, and greatly reduce taxes on the other half. The balance of the national tax burden would, of course, be paid by corporations. Call it tax fairness or call it tax justice. It's an idea whose time has come and will not go away. Especially now with the bushist tax cuts for the rich, in force for the next decade.