The idea for the tariff belongs to the founders, not me. The idea of a "flat" tariff, being the same for all countries, belongs to me although I'm sure I'm not the originator of it. It removes mischief from the government activities.
The idea for a national sales tax to replace an income tax belongs to others, not me. I never advocated it. The relative merits of that proposal are for debate on a different thread.
The idea that a direct tax on individuals was bad and was to be avoided belongs to the founders also. They were correct in my opinion. The income tax and it's attendant problems and government intrusion was one of the single worst policies to be foisted on the american people.
But, the problem as I see it is that the tax on any given item IS "the same for all parties". This makes the tax burden on a $1.00 candy bar the same for me as for Perot and Gates. It also makes the tax burden on a $30,000 dollar car the same for me as Perot and Gates,
Gee George, it sounds like you are trying to make the case for the graduated income tax even though you just proposed a flat tax. That particular evil idea is the construct of communists, it can be found in their manifesto. Envy is a terrible thing George.
A true flat tax on individuals would take the total cost of government and devide it by the number of citizens and send them all a bill.
(2)A true flat tax on individuals would take the total cost of government and devide it by the number of citizens and send them all a bill."
-------------------------
TJ, Nah. #1, I wrote a "true flat tax based on income", and that is indeed what I meant. IMHO, the Graduated aspect of our income tax is 10% of the problem with our current income tax. It used to be worse. At one time, if I made $10,000, I would pay something like $3,000 in taxes. But, if I happened to make $100,000 in the same given year, the tax bite became levied at 90% on anything above a certain amount. Something like $3,000 dollars if I remember right. So, I would have been severely punished for working hard and/or being lucky enough to make that $100,000. I figured by the time I payed federal, state, and local taxes, I would have to take out a loan to survive. Even a dumy like me can see that that don't make no sense. I am NOT envious of other people's wealth, nor am I anti-wealth. I would in fact like to be filthy rich. But, I ain't got the heart to take other people's money in order to be so.
The other 90% of the problem with our present income tax is deductions and exemptions that actually make a mockery of the graduated aspect of the income tax. Ross Perot for example paid something like 3.5 million in taxes one year on income of 60 million at a "32%" bracket rate. While I still paid approximately one-third of my income for income taxes {local, state and federal}. President Clinton paid something like $25,000 on income of $250,000 the same year in the same income bracket. Had to be deductions and exemptions that afforded them this break. With a legitimate flat tax, the amount would be somewhere between 10-15% I figure.
And #2, is a "head tax" or tax based on "enumeration" that is mentioned in the Constitution, and, IMHO, the worst form of taxation ever devised. Folks in East Baltimore would be responsible for the same amount per family head as in Martha's Vineyard. Nah. I still say that both the tax proposals {Dick Armey's "flat income tax, and The other guy's national sales tax} on the board are written by wealthy men for wealthy men and their money handlers and designed to keep them that way despite their level of competence. While at the same time making sure that the middle class pays the brunt of the burden and essentially getting rid of the middle class and leaving US with lower and upper classes with no ladder in between. I've been called everything ranging from socialist down for advocating this {as I see it most equitable form of taxation. Ain't NO tax system "fair"} true flat tax based on income. But, I still dream. Peace and love, George.
devide= divide
Note to self,,,spell check catches typos.