The discussions on getting rid of the income tax system are always amusing.
1. Ain’t gonna happen. A very large percentage of the practical power of Congress derives from its ability to make slight changes in the tax code and therefore favor or punish particular groups.
2. The proponents generally seem to fall prey to the peculiar delusion that the same funds will be generated, but everybody will pay less. That everybody will come out ahead. A little thought will show that with any method of raising revenue, if the amount generated is the same, then any change will result in some paying more and some less.
Liberals made the same claim about Obamacare. Everybody will pay less and get more than under the previous system. We all know how well that worked out.
How in the world can we talk with a straight face about utterly remodeling American society, which is what elimination of the income tax would entail, when we can’t even elect a Congress and President? Any such dramatic change would require a significant super-majority, in practical if not constitutional terms, as it should. And we can’t pull together a simple majority.
The whole thing reminds me of calls for a constitutional amendment whenever getting a law passed is “too hard,” ignoring that an amendment is at least 10x harder to get through than a simple law.
The proper and only method of moving forward is to change public sentiment, elect majorities and then super-majorities. Talk of drastic change without following this path is delusional.
And most here, I’d speculate, would acknowledge a return to a Constitutional Republic is ‘never going to happen’ as well.
Your point, though true, is the sticking point. And I will point to one area where ‘changing the public’ is always talked about, but never seems to happen (no matter how ‘irate’ they may be): voting (IE: see to be the same re-voted into office time and time again...no matter how fleeced/pissed the public sentiment)
I would agree with another earlier post...it’s where the $$ is SPENT (that Constitutional thing again). I can not see the States passing an Amend ‘fix’ when it would then require them to actually do their JOBS (9th/10th) [I’ve completely given up on any hope of reforming D.C. What’s the definition of insanity again?]
Course, it could be my simple public (and self-taught) education, but I could never wrap my brain around two conflicting Amendments: Slavery vs. income-tax. Just at what % of income tax does ‘slavery’ kick in if not 100%??
With either fair or flat tax, a large parasitic class in society would have to look for other work, tax accountants, compliance officers, strategists, and the people who set up trusts and offshore corporations and LLCs. None of those would have any value whatsoever if there were just a flat tax or a fair tax. I also prefer the fair tax, preferring to tax consumption rather than productivity, plus addressing the privacy concerns of the income tax.