Can’t go along on this one, friend. John Jay states, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Washingrad needs no such power. We fought Great Britain over a 2-cent tax on tea. The income tax was proposed by Lincoln and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The only way they could make it Constitutional was to sew it on as an amendment. If the income tax were already legal and Constitutional, no amendmnet would have been necessary, would it? The fact of the Amendment is an argument for its own illegitimacy. WITHOUT AN INCOME TAX, the United States fought a revolution, secured its independence, defeated Mexico and Spain, ended slavery, built the tranconctinental railroad, wired the nation for telegraph and became a world power. What that Washingrad does with your income tax money is it, exactly, that they need to be doing? This country had ZERO income tax from 1607 to 1913 and did alright. The trouble with the fair tax is that it’s a tax to which Washingrad still has no right. Tax = “the power to destroy”. What is a “Fair Power to Destroy”?
Only since 1913 has Washingrad had the unlimited funds to create the monstrosity that sits astride the Potomac this day. I say it’s time we cut off their allowance. If they want money, let them do what the rest of us do-—produce something or get a real job.
“The fact of the Amendment is an argument for its own illegitimacy.”
That’s an obviously ridiculous statement. Amendments are neither illegal, illegitimate, nor unintended. The Founders recognized that the future is unknown and a sufficiently large majority of honest men might agree changes were needed from time to time. Is the 1st Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech an “argument” that Free Speech is illegitimate ? Is the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms also illegitimate ? How about the Amendment that granted women the vote ? How about the 22nd Amendment that limits the President to serving two terms ? How about the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery ?
The idea that an Amendment was needed equates to illegitimacy of the idea is absurd.
Had you actually thought about what I wrote, you would have noticed that I said any income tax rate must not EXCEED 10% and must apply equally to EVERYONE, but there was no lower limit to the rate, meaning it could go to zero. Since 40% or people currently pay 0% and 75% of the people currently pay LESS than 10%, my Amendment would virtually guarantee a slow but inevitable demand to reduce that rate.
In the meantime, we would not default on the national debt, the interest on which is over $300B/yr, or military pensions and medical care of disabled veterans, which are another $300B/yr.
Are you really advocating that America be a deadbeat nation that refuses to pay back money it borrowed in good faith and leaves honored soldiers without their pensions ?
The same goes for an Amendment to limit spending. By only spending the amount ACTUALLY received in taxes during the previous year, you can never go into debt — because you can only spend money you have, and not borrow based on assumptions about the future. The spending is further limited by the 75% of the people that are trying to get their tax rate reduced to as low as it was before. They currently pay less than 10%, so my starting the rate *at* 10% will cause them to feel the pain and demand lower spending to get lower tax rates.
“This country had ZERO income tax from 1607 to 1913 and did alright.” First, we were not a “country” in 1607 but a colony of another “country” until 1776 which imposed plenty of taxes even though they were not on “income” but instead on property, foodstuffs, clothing, etc. Second, the natural barriers of oceans and distance that made self-defense a relatively inexpensive proposition prior to the 20th century no longer provide that security — and I don’t consider the 4% of GDP that we spend on our military to be excessive. I especially don’t begrudge our retired military their medical care and pensions.
Your ideas are only possible if you get to dictate reality, including dishonorably dismissing legitimate obligations. You seem to want to ditch our limited republican form of government and substitute anarchy. Since you consider any “right to tax” to be a “right to destroy”, you therefor have no way to fund anything EXCEPT anarchy.
My way has the advantage of actually being possible, legal, and honorable.