If we can get the states to agree on a distribution system
Are states then to give up their soverignty over how they collect their own revenues?
You do realise that this is something that cannot be imposed upon states by federal government due to the lack of Constitutional authority in this matter.
According to aggregate figures, in relation to gross family income, a tax that covers both state and federal government would be on the order of around 33%+ revenue neutral to 2000 taxlaw.
Unfortunately the Bush tax cuts have not been made permanent, so that is where we stand, at present
You have posted many points -- but I detect some understanding evolving. The states of course would have to do this voluntarily and would retain the right to tax BUT when their constituents see what can be accomplished on the national tax base level there will surely be a desire in the populous of basic tax relief on the state level. Your statement of 33% being revenue neutral BASED ON FAMILY INCOME may be right BUT Family and corporate adjusted gross income is less than 2% of the APT tax base -- that's how the very low rates are possible. I believe you perceptively brought up the Tobin Tax proposed in the international community to fund third world problems -- it never could be agreed on by the various sovereign gov'ts but that doesn't means the basic idea was bad - just it's application. Our enemies use gun powder against us, so should we not use gun powder for our good? Please look at the numbers and read the website carefully, there are alot of details there (www.apttax.com).
Then ask yourself should we just pass on a serious opportunity to pay 70 TIMES less Federal Tax than we have to?