First he says no federal income tax. Then next he calls it a National tax. What's the difference?
The difference between paying taxes at a retail store, and paying taxes to the IRS with government hounding over you for records and information and payment of taxes.
So say the National Tax starts at 23%. Few years go by and that's not enough. They bring it to 30% and so on. Please, don't tell me to believe they would never raise that number!
When every voter is affected by a change in rates immediately, you can bet that Congress Critters pause.
As it is, over half the voting population perceive little or no federal taxation making for a natural constituency for more government and higher taxes on the other guy. Until the costs of government as well as largess is felt by all, you can figure that government will continue to grow continuously more powerful and intrusive.
A very necessary constitutional link between the individual and government has been broken with the advent of the graduated income tax and taxes on business hidden behind a veil of inflation.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
- "The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the Government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."
That is why a return to founding principles are absolutely necessary.
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.
This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
The income tax must go.
Now, what is lowering the cost of food, clothing, shelter, and transportation?
Competition for you dollars, exactly the same thing that set prices for you limited dollars today.
Just exactly how is that guaranteed? Is the government going to oversee pricing of independent business? Hmm, so business will have government controls??
You want guarantees of a constant total payment for goods (embedded tax plus tax free pricing, vs visible tax plus taxfree price)? You don't have any now.
It sounds scary to me.
Yep economic freedom and free enterprise is scary isn't it.
"First he says no federal income tax. Then next he calls it a National tax. What's the difference?"
Ummm ..... about 59,000 pages for starters ..... or a 99+% simplification. That translates into hundreds of billions of $$$ in compliance cost savings.
For another, we would no longer be putting US producers at a disadvantage vs. their foreign counterparts with our tax system. That would have a MAJOR impact on our trade deficit - without provoking a trade war, retaliation by trading partners, or WTO sanctions.
How is that for starters?