Income Tax Fix

If the government employs someone, why does that employee pay income tax to the very government that issues the paychecks? Republicans and other conservatives routinely argue that the more money people have in their hands, the more money people will spend, which in turn will cause the economy to grow. So if you lower my pay, eliminating what I would otherwise pay in taxes (assuming that were my only income), you would have less money going out (my paycheck is smaller) and less money coming in (my tax burden is eliminated), but the numbers are a wash. Of course, if I were to have two part-time government jobs, I would end up coming out marginally ahead, but it would probably be more trouble than it would be worth.

Now, you may be wondering about what this does for married couples and charitable giving. After all, if I have no tax burden at all, I have no incentive to itemize my returns, which gives me no incentive to give money to charity, donate a used car, or, well, do much else that might come off as greed-motivated magnanimity. That's OK, though, because I am a magnanimous person already.

As for married couples (who may file jointly), let's go back to the example of $100,000, but divide it evenly this time between two people. The government employee would get a 10% reduction in pay (to use the dream rate from above) and earn $45,000, bringing the household income to $95,000. Of that, only $50,000 would then be taxable, reducing the tax bracket for the family. Once more, this puts more money in the hands of the people, though it does not radically alter the tax calculation.

Government, with a smaller pie to slice up, would have to shrink, and its employees would not only have to be the best and the brightest in order to get the jobs, but they would have an advantage in the dating pool. After all, who would not want to be married to that kind of tax benefit? Bring in $95,000 and get taxed as if you brought in $50,000? Think of the possibilities!

But wait, there's more. Since the number of government jobs would necessarily shrink with the budget, the requirements for those jobs could increase. Since many people would want those jobs, education would have to improve at all levels. This would, of course, force real reform, not more NCLB crap. This would move us ahead of other nations in education and allow us to move more toward isolationism in our trade policies, though we could, with all of the people who wanted those military (government) jobs, still project our will wherever we wished.

Simply by reducing my tax burden (and that of others employed by governments that charge income tax), we can solve all of the nation's problems.