The Federal Government would be forbidden from taxing individuals or enterprises. They would be authorized to tax goods and services only, and such taxes must be clearly delineated and recorded in all transactions and receipts. This shall not empower the Federal government to levy such taxes on interstate trade, nor tariffs in any form, whether interstate or international. International economic sanctions, taxes, and tariffs shall be approved by a 2/3 vote of the governors or the respective states.
This would eliminate the IRS, make tax discretionary spending, offer transparency for all tax revenues, and limit the government’s ability to seize property against the will of the citizen.It would also prohibit the government from using economic sanctions on states to enforce it’s will, and would make national sanctions against a foreign state subject to the approval of the individual states.
Principle of Local Primacy
In all matters concerning governance, State government shall hold primacy over federal government, and county government shall hold primacy over state government, and town and city government shall hold primacy over county government.
This shall hold true in all matters excepting Judicial, and the right of the Federal Government to Levy taxes on goods and services.
This would make power flow downward, rather than upward. A natural check on the tendency of central government to draw power to itself over time. Government programs, such as social security and health care would be offered, rather than compulsory, services. Citizens would be free to move to or from states based on their desire to live in areas that partake of, or except themselves from, central government planning.
I copied this from a post of mine on another site.
I sort of did it off the top of my head…I am not a lawyer or anything. I am more interested in feedback regarding the general idea, rather than details about wording and such.
So here’s the thing.. goods and services don’t earn any income. Only real people do. So your suggestion is to simply “reform” the income tax by simply (1) renaming it (2) changing the bureaucratic method of collecting it, and (3) rearranging between the victims for which the burden of taxes falls upon.
You can also earn less by working less so it follows from your logic that the income tax too, offers discretionary decisions regarding the amount of taxes they pay.
But also your economic reasoning is also faulty. The incidence of taxation always fall on the earners of income.
The hard economic reality is that taxes on consumption are never simply passed on to consumers. They lower consumption, which lowers the entrepreneurial and capitalist return on their sales, which lowers the marginal value productivity of all factors of production. Income earners incur the costs of the lower productivity. If consumers are hurt, it is only indirectly by the overall curtailment of productivity, but that can be said about any coercive government interference in the market.
Jefferson should have been against all forms of taxation.
As stated above, the costs incurred on income earners are not discretionary. But the fallacy in your reasoning can also be shown from the consumer’s point of view only:
I can also not work and therefore, “decide” not to pay any taxes. Likewise, i can decide not to consume and not pay any taxes. Either both are discretionary or neither are discretionary. I hope the fallacy is clear.