"So while we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the near perfection that would be a flat tax, we should certainly aspire to something better. The most entrepreneurial nation on earth should not be taxing work, let alone taxing its most productive citizens the most."
______________
The problem with trying to propose (much less implement) a flat or consumption tax over the current progressive system is PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY ORGANIZED THEIR COLLECTIVE LIVES around the current tax code.
47% of the populace pay no taxes. There is going to be mass resistance towards any system that would require them to pay anything.
How is a sales tax NOT regressive?
NO form of “income” tax, be it flat, round, or square, is EVERY going to solve the corruption problem in Washington because it leaves in place the main ingredient for that corruption! The Washington crowd wold still be left to decide just what is, or is not, “income”.
The ONLY way to stop that in it’s tracks is to institute a tax system which would allow virtually all taxpayers to, as our founders intended, pay their taxes in a manner that is COMPLETELY anonymous to the government.
This can be done today simply by passing ONE bill currently before both houses of congress (HR25/S13) the FairTax bill!
Gosh, 9-9-9 has both 3 flat taxes and a consumption tax. It seems to me that is a good start.
Wrong. 47% pay no income taxes, but they do pay plenty of other taxes. The taxes are just hidden so well they don't realize they are paying them.
A consumption tax is unfair to the poor and beneficial to the rich who pay a far lessor portion of their income in consumption.
A flat tax is the fairest form of taxation. Everyone paying a fixed percentage of their income irregardless of how much they consume.
My only stipulation would be the first $30,000 of income be tax free. This helps those that are at the very bottom and close to the bottom since that deduction applies to everyone’s income, as you gain more income it becomes less of a percentage of your overall income.
I also think that there should be an amendment limiting the overall tax burden on citizens say at 30% (just picking a number here). Everything has its order of precedence so say Federal Government gets it’s take first then State, County, city/village in that order.
Somewhere, somehow we have to permanently limit the governments on how much they can tax us. The Constitution’s purpose was for limiting the government (despite what they tell you) and so that would be a good place to put this.
###
Not even close to fair, let alone “perfection”.
What possible association is there between an individual’s consumption level and his REAL DOLLAR level support of the government.
Just more of the same: Taxing the prosperous disproportionately.
I saw it asked only once on FR, and never answered.
What is the constitutionality of a national sales or consumption tax?
How can the federal government tax intra-state transactions?
The Constitution already prohibits taxing goods that move between states.
Article I Section 9No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
So, how can they tax purchases made within a state when the jurisdiction of the federal government is between states and between the United States and foreign countries?
-PJ
That something is difficult to do does not equal being the wrong thing to do.
The right thing to do is frequently difficult. We got here because we keep repeating the same “political expedient” mistake over and over and over.
Give the pariolous state of our, and the worlds, fiscal house, we cannot keep kicking the can down the road any longer