Tarriffs and Excise taxes

all else is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

You mentioned a lot of different things that, taken as a whole, would not in my opinion really change the underlying problems with the current system, in fact they could be even worse.

First of all, maximizing the revenue for the Fed. gov. is not necessarily a good thing. The financial state of governments at all levels show that they tend to spend whatever amount they receive, and then some. The single most effective way to limit the size, scope, intrusiveness, and power of any government is to restrict the money it has to work with, and a national sales tax would do just the opposite. More importantly, it would also not provide any means for the citizenry to control gov. revenue, short of denying themselves the fruits of their own labor. Furthermore, the philosophical basis is perverse: the more you spend the more tax you pay. (At least with an income tax one could conceivably argue that taxes are a proxy for legal and security costs to protect one’s proportionally valuable business from contract violations and destruction.) I also think there would be just as much if not more IRS intrusions. One would still have to prove that one’s income is or is not above $225,000 (or whatever, but using your example) requiring all the same record keeping, finagling, time, and accounting costs. Any such income threshold would become a political football, again providing a way for politicians to “buy votes” by raising or lowering it (the “rich” would be outnumbered in votes) allowing deductions, exemptions, suspensions, etc., etc. And, of course, the same would apply to offshore accounts and all that that implies. All of that would be fundamentally no different than what we have now, and I should think worse (i.e., more complex and unjust).

Consider these questions: Do the people who make at least $225,000 also have to pay a sales tax? If so, would it be a different rate? Is that fair/just? Why? Who would determine that? And why $225,000 anyway? Who decides that? Would a sales tax be only for goods, or services too? How about financial products, or money? What about imports? Do only US citizens pay, or everybody? Does it matter where something is bought?

I could think of a hundred more questions like this. Such a system would not be simple at all and difficult to enforce (more IRS, etc.) and most likely riddled with injustices and controversies.

Yes, the current version of the Constitution does grant all US citizens the legal right to vote. The key word here is “legal” in the sense that it is granted by Men not Nature. I consider it a privilege that I live within a society that has bestowed upon itself an enforceable means of each and every member to have a voice in its political policies. Originally only those who had property/wealth and paid taxes were granted that right but subsequent Constitutional amendments expanded that right to everyone regardless of whether or not they have any property/wealth of their own or legal claims to the property of others or who pay taxes at all. (I understand the sentiments for doing so but I think we are all learning the consequences of that.) I agree that the right to vote is not a privilege like, say, the license to drive an motor vehicle on the public roadways, but it is a privilege in the grander sense that only by virtue of living within a society governed by laws and not men does such a right even exist and is enforced.

If every citizen paid the same amount of tax it would put every citizen on equal footing politically, which is what all of the amendments pertaining to the expansion and equality of political rights were intended, and would counter the tendency of politicians to buy votes. Not only would it re-establish the original Constitutional intent and purpose of representation for taxation and the encouragement of civil participation, it would do so very simply and directly.

“Each citizen would have one vote and one tax bill amount for the privilege.”

Voting is a right. Paying taxes is a responsibility. Neither is a privilege.

I don’t disagree with you that things are so lopsided right now that what I’m proposing could not be implemented very rapidly. However, using the current state of affairs as a reason to reject a different system is counterproductive. Virtually nothing can change if that standard is used. A new philosophical basis must be accepted for there to be any lasting change. Once people are on the same page with that the ways and means of the transition will be more apparent and possible. Right now, most people seem to think that it is just or “fair” that those who make more or have more should pay more. I’ve never understood that concept. If the prices charged for ones’ groceries depended upon their income then most people would get it, and yet that is how taxes work.

Setting aside the immorality of a flat tax system within a corrupted plutocracy, about 1 in 8 Americans lives below the federal poverty line, which for an individual is less than $11,000/year, and for a family of 4 is $22,000/year. It’s not a matter of “phasing in” a flat tax; it would never fly. You can’t get blood out of a stone, and if you attempt to imprison the large minority who cannot make that payment, you’d have a revolution on your hands. If you think it might be feasible given enough cuts in spending, I can only point out that government spending is now over 40% of our GDP, such that drastic cuts would damage the economy and further reduce people’s ability to make a flat tax payment. This idea just doesn’t work mathematically.