This went out in the mail today.
March 21, 2010
Kurt Henning
(address)
Paul S. Caselton
Deputy General Counsel – Income Tax
Illinois Department of Revenue
101 West Jefferson
Springfield, IL 62794
Dear Mr. Caselton:
Thank you for your most recent letter dated March 10, 2010. In it, you answered my question:
“How does the laying of a direct tax on our income (where the failure to pay or file the paperwork means fines, confiscation of private property, and/or imprisonment) NOT reduce our fundamental right to work to that of a privilege?”
Since your answer was so brief, I quote it here as a convenient reference:
“Dear Mr. Henning:
In your letter dated March 4, 2010, you ask how imposing a tax on income ‘does not reduce our fundamental right to work to that of a privilege?’ This question reflects a lack of thought on your part. Any tax necessarily deprives the taxpayer of his or her right to own property and, to the extent the taxpayer’s property is the result of his or her labor, is also a ‘reduction’ on the right to work for compensation. The premise that a tax is somehow impermissible because it reduces your right to work would mean that no tax is permissible.”
Before I go on, I have to tell you that I have been wondering where to begin when it comes to addressing the last sentence in your letter. You have painted with such a broad stroke, and come so close to the “But how else will government pay for this and that?” argument (which, as I have said before, is no argument), that I have decided to simply leave it alone. It is so faulty a statement, such an overreaching attempt to smother the true principle I am driving at, that I would be forced to fill up at least another page or two to reveal its many flaws. So, unless you request that I expound on it, we move on.
Having said that, I am pleased to note that we are now agreed on two points since our correspondence began. We agree that filing income tax forms is not a “criminal case,” and therefore not in violation of Amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution. And, from what I make of your above answer, because you never at any point refute the idea that the income tax reduces our right to work to a privilege, and then you actually proceed to justify it as if any idea to the contrary can only be the result of a “lack of thought,” and then assert that such a reduction of our right to work is simply a matter of course, it is clear that we also agree that the tax on our income reduces our fundamental right to work to a privilege.
This brings us to the third and final point that I wish to have addressed, which, as you will remember, is the second part of the above question (as originally stated to the governor and various legislators):
“And if, in fact, our right to work has been reduced to a privilege by the income tax, how is this NOT unconstitutional?”
To avoid any confusion, I would like to examine what the question truly is. The question is not, “How is the income tax not unconstitutional?” If you look at the wording, you will see that the central premise of the question is: “How is the reduction of a fundamental right to that of a privilege not unconstitutional?” As I said in my previous letter, the issue here is ultimately not one of revenue; it is an issue of fundamental, inalienable rights.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Kurt Henning
P.S. If you are going to label me as a “Protestor” in your H:\DOCS files (as noted at the bottom of your stationery), then let’s be clear as to exactly what it is that I protest: anything that controls, reduces, destroys, or otherwise violates my inalienable rights, or attempts to do so. In this sense, it is the responsibility of every human being to be a “Protestor,” and I wear the label proudly.
Comments