Repealing the 16th Amendment (allegedly ratified) is the ultimate goal bet not a prerequisite to suspending the marxist income tax and imposing a consumption tax. The typical excuse of friends of income taxes is that we would wind up with both. If that held water, then what is stopping Congress from imposing both today? Both are allowed in the Constitution. That neutralizes that argument. I say suspend the marxist income tax for a reasonable period of time, and finance the guvmint with a consumption tax. After that time, the Marxist income tax will be doomed and the people will demand the repeal of the 16th.

Eliminate the IRS and revise the entire tax code. Take that mountain of conflicting laws and regulations and build a bonfire. The new code must be contained within 30 pages including the index. The new code should not be written by either lawyers or accountants.

People WILL keep all their earnings and pay for the government on their transactions. Poor will pay nothing, rich will pay more.

However that is fair because the rich have more property that the military defends, the mail comes to, interstate commerce benefits etc. so they should pay more for the protection and services.

People are duty bound to pay for the government tasks/powers that the Constitution explicitly lists. Not anything else.

Everything else the government took upon themselves (based on redefining "General welfare" in the taxation power to mean any powers to DO what ever they wanted) is THEFT and fraud .

Read this for the Fairest Tax. http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPress/...

Repealing the 16th Amendment would be a great start in the right direction.

Precisely why I added the stipulation not allowing deficit spending (although the wording may not have been clear ;^)
Banking sociopaths currently control America, and they did it by being the only source of credit (created from nothing, not from any assets from productive activity.)

I do not know what the tax rate level would ultimately be for a consumption (sales) tax. As Federalist 21 points out, the rate "may be compared to a fluid, which in time will find its level with the means of paying them." Importantly, "the single advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed-- that is, an extension of the revenue." In short, tax on articles of consumption controls the size and reach of guvmint. Not the other way around as with all income taxes, rooted in marxism.

You are absolutely right. An individual selling the property of their labor in return for a paycheck is or should not be a federal tax event. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR A FEDERAL PROPERTY TAX. The exchange of your labor for a paycheck results in NO GAIN, so how can that be defined as income (def. "the gain DERIVED from labor or property or both combined.") I also totally agree, as did the Framers, that guvmint should be financed by a consumption (sales) tax. Read Federalist 21.

Why would a consumption tax "be unacceptably regressive"? The final price paid would likely be cheaper that prices currently paid since there are no longer imbedded taxes, compliance costs, more capital flowing back into the country, etc. There is no complaint about "regressiveness" of sales taxes in states that do not have a marxist income tax. Read Federalist 21.

This interview was unfortunate. First, Johnson used the "revenue neutral" mantra which means all we are debating is the means and methods of the theft not its justification or magnitude. Second, he made no reference to decreasing the size and expenditures of the insolvent federal government. Unsatisfactory.

Agreed.

I only pulled that 10% out of the air to make an example. The key to setting a tax level would lie in systematically eliminating Fed Gov agencies. According to the Daily Caller, the Government claims not to know how many agencies it has. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/the-go...
Wiki has a list but no count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe...

Unless and until we can slay this monster, talking tax levels is meaningless.

Only object to your example of a 10% tax. That much 'revenue', er, stolen property, puts far too much power in federally centralized hands.
One percent is far more than enough to accomplish the constitutionally required protection of individual property and rights.
And NEVER allow spending in excess of the amount stolen from consumers.

He has said that. I also agree about the debates. All qualified candidates from any party should be included, not just the hand picked whose turn it is.

I only wish that he had justified abolishing the IRS on the grounds that individuals are entitled to keep 100% of their earnings. A Federal sales tax would be a perfect way to support limited government spending and the Progressives would finally have their way in that the 1% would be paying their fair share. They spend more, they pay more taxes.There should be no deductions, no favors. If you can afford a 1/2 million $ Ferrari, you pay $50,000 in taxes. If your wallet can handle a $13,000 Versa, you pay $1300 in taxes. What could be more fair that that?

$5Au finds Johnson to be a likeable guy with some interesting ideas. However, a consumption tax (i.e., Federal sales tax) would be unacceptably regressive to most people.