Whatever the Fate of the Fair Tax Act, Congress Should Still Abolish the IRS
Getting rid of the much-despised tax agency would be a good idea. It’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Watching a good idea enter the corridors of government is like dropping a seed into a desert: There's so much potential there, with virtually no chance of taking root. So it is with a proposal in the House of Representatives to overhaul the tax system and, importantly, abolish the abusive and intrusive Internal Revenue Service. Unfortunately, the very things that make that tax agency so widely despised by the public make it highly prized by politicians.
"Instead of adding 87,000 new agents to weaponize the IRS against small business owners and middle America, this bill will eliminate the need for the department entirely by simplifying the tax code with provisions that work for the American people and encourage growth and innovation," Rep. Buddy Carter (R–Ga.) announced of his proposed Fair Tax Act. "Armed, unelected bureaucrats should not have more power over your paycheck than you do."
Reason's Joe Lancaster already did a good job of breaking down the bill, which would swap our enormously complex income tax system for a national sales tax. There are tradeoffs in the idea, as is inherent in just about any policy shift. But one of its most attractive qualities is that, in discarding income taxes, it would get rid of the financial inquisitor that's required by a system that monitors and takes a piece of everybody's wages and salaries. That inquisitor is the IRS, which many Americans have good reason to fear and hate.
"The Internal Revenue Service was once again under fire on Capitol Hill Tuesday, as a Senate committee launched another round of hearings, this time focusing on alleged abuses of power inside the tax agency," CNN reported back in 1998. "In the first of four days of testimony from taxpayers and agents, the Senate Finance Committee heard instances of the IRS stepping over the line, including stories of retaliation against whistleblowers and raids on taxpayers' homes that may not have been justified. Some of the harshest criticism was aimed at the agency's criminal investigation division, as witnesses complained that the investigators used excessive techniques and were out of control."
The tax agency pulled in its horns, sort of, for some years after that. But government officials with a propensity for spending every dollar they can get their hands on and more constantly fret about closing the "tax gap" between the IRS's actual take and what they might collect in a hypothetical world populated by compliant Stepford citizens. So, last year the Biden administration and its legislative friends gave the tax collectors $80 billion to hire new employees and step up enforcement efforts.
Who do those new agents target? We're always promised that the IRS will be sent only after the sort of mythical rich people who don't hire lawyers and accountants and shift their political donations when they're angry. But it inevitably goes after people who can't fight back.
"Despite the infusion of new funding earmarked for the IRS via last year's Inflation Reduction Act, the agency continued historic trends of hassling primarily low-income taxpayers, with relatively few millionaires and billionaires getting caught up in the audit sweep," Reason's Liz Wolfe noted of data from fiscal year 2022.
The IRS, and this will certainly shock you, is also often unleashed against people those in power just don't like. It turns out that the tools of the financial inquisition can be effectively used to torment politicians' enemies. Most people will remember when the Treasury Department's own inspector general for tax administration called out the IRS for targeting Tea Party groups under the Obama administration. But that was nothing new or rare.
"Since the advent of the federal income tax about a century ago, several presidents—or their zealous underlings—have directed the IRS to use its formidable police powers to harass or punish enemies, political rivals, and administration critics," The Christian Science Monitor's Gail Russell Chaddock reported in 2013. She documented six White Houses, Democrat and Republican, who did just that.
"What do you expect when you sue the president?" an IRS employee reportedly told the conservative group Judicial Watch in 1999 when its officials complained about an audit.
Unsurprisingly, a history of intrusiveness, abuse behavior, and political weaponization has not endeared the IRS to the public. Many people resent the tax agency and shun its employees.
"You go to a party, and if you say you are from the IRS, half the people move into the other room," Richard Schickel, a retired IRS senior collections officer, told Bloomberg for a story about rock-bottom morale at the agency. "After a while, your wife and relatives get tired of listening to your stories. They say, 'How could you take those people's houses and their businesses?'"
"To some employees, the taxpayer is the enemy," Schickel wrote of his former IRS colleagues in a 2015 book about his experiences.
The federal agency's frankly appalling history means that dismantling the IRS and replacing the tax system it oversees with something less complex that doesn't enable such a dangerous apparatus could be expected to be fairly popular with the public. Obviously, that should depend on it not being replaced with something worse, but more IRS really doesn't look like the way to go.
However, the public doesn't decide on our tax system, the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government do. And Rep. Buddy Carter and his allies aside, most members of the political class see the IRS as a means for milking the population of as much money as possible in a doomed effort to catch up with spending schemes that the Congressional Budget Office projects will outstrip revenue for as far into the future as it looks.
"The deficits in CBO's baseline budget projections … hover around $1.0 trillion in 2022 and 2023, before increasing to $2.3 trillion by 2032," the CBO forecast in August 2022.
But politicians are forever hopeful that the IRS can squeeze us hard enough to close that gap. If it can't they still like having it around as a political weapon for use against their enemies. President Biden has already said he's opposed to the bill, even if it somehow won passage in both the House and the Senate. That's why prospects for the plan to replace the income tax with a sales tax and ditch the IRS are rated as slim to none.
Getting rid of the IRS that has tormented Americans and served politicians as a bludgeon against their critics since its founding would be a very good idea. And government is where good ideas go to die.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Quixotic as it may be, at least Rep. Buddy Carter is doing something: Presenting a legislative alternative to income taxation, and getting a recorded vote on a bill for a national consumption tax to replace it. It has to start somewhere.
Nothing changes unless you do something to change it.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
Change within itself isn't always a positive. And Change in the ranks of politicians currently has a running record of being a negative.
I work from home and make a decent $6k a week, which is incredible considering that I was jobless in a bad economy a year ago. I always thank God for honoring me with these guidelines, and now it’s my responsibility to demonstrate and share anticipatory compassion with
everyone. Similarly, I’ve just begun———> http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Getting rid of the IRS is a cosmetic change because the work the agency does will still have to be done. The problem here is not the IRS but a tax code created by Congress that is far too complex. A tax code that seems to want to do everything rather than focusing on a single mission to collect funds to run the government and provide services to the American people. The tax code should not help you buy a house, pay for medical service, pay for tuition or other things. Income ought to be straight forward whether that is wages from building a house or income from investments. The sales tax will not pass, so what next? Will it be to leave the system as it is or to address the real problem.
★I've made $70,000 so far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 2 to 3 hours a day I've made such great money.I am truly appreciative to and my manager, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.....
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> https://dailyworls7.blogspot.com/
I'm quite partial to the head tax myself, alternatively known as "the way you pay for every other all-inclusive service model in the world". Simply take the expenditures, divide by the population, and send every man, woman, child, and intergenderconfusednonbinaryxem an invoice for that amount. If the amount is greater than the average person is willing to pay, then perhaps that will incentivize them to finally vote for lower spending.
Unconstitutional. "No direct tax or capitation tax..."
What kind of argument is that? The income tax also was "unconstitutional"; we passed an amendment.
Obviously, any large changes to federal taxation will likely require a constitutional amendment.
We can still fix the system we have without an amendment. Keep it an income tax but simplify the fuck out of it.
People too focused on the form of the taxation when the real problem is not the taxes themselves but the level of spending. Cut the spending and the taxes will follow.
We can worry about the form of the taxation when what we pay is low enough that are sphincters can heal.
There is one inherent problem with the income tax which is that it requires government to be able to know how much money everyone is making. I find that to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
....unless in Proportion to the Census of enumeration (keep reading)
“Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Requiring every person to pay the same amount is constitutional.
Except for that clause about no head taxes.
That *is* the clause about head (capitation) taxes, they are allowed if they are apportioned (IE the same amount per person)
Yes, that the IRS is the problem rather than the tax law that empowers it is shallow thinking to the point of childishness. Abolishing the IRS while not getting rid of the law is just rearranging the executive branch's deck chairs. Some part of the bureaucracy is going to enforce the law.
It's a common problem with Reason writers: they think like teenagers. Instead of coming up with better policies, they just want laws not to be enforced, selectively, depending on their feels.
Yeah, but he's not arguing for abolishing the IRS and leaving everything else exactly the same. He's saying make the IRS unnecessary by significantly changing how federal taxes work so that most of the IRS's functions are unnecessary.
There is no work the IRS needs to do. Abolish and replace with nothing.
That's the kind of change Reason-style "libertarians" love.
we don't need the irs because we don't need the income tax. abolish both and reduce the fed by 40% and we'd all be better off.
Before the IRS the State's were in charge of collecting excise taxes.
A reboot sounds like the best option to me.
I’m thinking system collapse is the most likely mechanism to address the IRS and the “tax harder” progressive tax code currently in existence.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
When IRS agents begin kicking in doors for the $601 Venmo transfer, maybe Americans will cry enough.
Nope. They will acquiesce. To anything. The near-total obedience to COVID tyranny proved that. The cooperation with genderism insanity is more evidence.
Most folks get more out of the system than what they pay in. Having the more successful scofflaw neighbor taken away for not wanting to fund their kiddos education, healthcare or sex change procedure will cause them to look down upon the offender with smug arrogance. The ship has already met the iceberg.
Reason's Joe Lancaster already did a good job of breaking down the bill,
That was not the popular consensus.
Joe "did a good job" the same way TCU "kept the game close."
It was tied at one point!
Thanks for another great article. I asked somebody last night: when was the last time the Dem or Grabber-Of-Pussy half of The Kleptocracy mentioned that the Libertarian Party Platform calls for abolishing the Communist Manifesto income tax Amendment? The Kleptocracy meticulously elides our opposition to the IRS/16A, our pioneering of individual rights for pregnant women and simple repeal of imported Chinese prohibition laws that dry fanaticism slipstreamed in on.
Wrong Way!
Taxes on income is the wrong way to go. The Framers considered taxing income then rejected it for good reason.
Excerpt from Retribution Fever:
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.” -Daniel Webster (1819)
The income-tax had fostered all that had affrighted both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It gave the federal government unbridled power to invade the privacy of every American — adult and child — and selectively to destroy individual persons, single enterprises, and whole industries.
Its enforcing agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), had operated in a manner similar to the Nazi’s Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) or the Secret State Police in Germany. Its tyrannical tactics illustrated the worst sort of economic management by punishing rather than rewarding creativity and productivity. Worse, in promoting dishonesty, the income tax made criminals of most Americans, even accountants, who found the increasing complexity and laborious length of its so-called code and the forms derived therefrom invidious, incomprehensible, and intolerable. Americans were spending more than 6-billion, counter-productive hours annually to comply with the federal tax-code. Moreover, it was being used politically to persecute organizations and persons repeatedly while guilty bureaucrats within the IRS went unpunished for their illegal acts even when made public.
Nice article. Hope this kind of article we will get soon. Thank you
Nice article. Hope this kind of article we will get soon. Thank you - https://reelsaver.net/
But politicians are forever hopeful that the IRS can squeeze us hard enough to close that gap.
No they're not. They're hopeful they can get a few more drops of blood out of that turnip so they can spend it on some new scheme to buy votes. The government will spend every penny they can get their hands on and then some. Every penny they "save" will get two pennies spent somewhere else.
^^^ BINGO..................
Too many seem to believe if they can just crunch the numbers right a unicorn fart will pop out of the numbers.
Suppose it happens, and instead there’s a national sales tax. And years later, JD Tuccille has another post excoriating the iniquities of US Customs in their fight against inevitable smuggling. And there will be smuggling because the level of sales tax will be high enough to encourage it.
Leaving aside that a national sales tax is regressive – which is a feature, not a bug, for conservatives and right-wing libertarians – the issue glossed over is the complexity of the US tax code, a complexity almost entirely due to lobbying from various groups of usual suspects to engineer loopholes. There's a reason that PWMs on Wall Street have tax-driven product strategies.
You want to reduce the IRS? Fine. Reform and simplify the tax code, close all loopholes, do not discriminate between wealth increase due to income and wealth increase due to capital gains. A high deductible and then a single tax rate would do.
I’m pretty sure the FAIR Tax takes care of the second part by having some sort of floor on how much of what you spend gets taxed.
Reform and simplify the tax code, close all loopholes, do not discriminate between wealth increase due to income and wealth increase due to capital gains.
That sentence makes no sense at all. How do you define wealth?
More accurate would have been "I do not understand this sentence".
Capital gains may be earned over many years and reduced by inflation. It would be patently unfair to tax them at the same rate as income earned in the same year. If they were, investors would churn their portfolios more often and investment decisions would trend even more to squeezing as many bucks out in the short term and the long term be damned.
He wants to tax capital gains and “ wealth” because he has none of either.
LOL. Wrong-o, but don't stop believing.
I have made $16498 in one month by telecommuting. At the point when I lost my office employment multi month prior, I was disturbed and an ineffective go after a quest for new employment I was secured this online position. what's more, presently I am ready to win thousands from home. Everyone can carry out this responsibility and win more dollars online by follow this link...,.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
I was not proposing to ignore inflation in calculating wealth increase. But if you buy an asset for $100,000 and 10 years later it's worth $250,000, and the PV inflation-adjusted value of the purchase was $120,000 why should your $130,000 effective gain not be taxes as though you earned $130,000 in income?
Leaving aside that a national sales tax is regressive
No it’s not and no I won’t. Just because you perpetrate a lie doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
Most notably because this lie isn’t just a repeat of previous lies, but an expansion of them. Directly to your statement: a national tax on all sales that increases 0.1% for every dollar spent on the sale would be literally and unequivocally progressive. Absolutely progressive, more progressive than the Fair Tax *and* more progressive than our current scheme.
Fuck you for accepting the previous lie. Fuck you for expanding on it. Even if a toddler sticks their finger in an outlet by mistake, only a malevolent asshat would then go on to say that the problem is more kids don’t stick both fingers in more often. You fucks are the reason why budgets increasing from 1% to 1.5% rather than 1% to 2% is considered a budget cut. Fuck you.
No it’s not and no I won’t. Just because you perpetrate a lie doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
Just because you're gullible and ignorant doesn't mean I should accept your argument.
Sales taxes are regressive because the proportion of income that gets spent rather than saved diminishes as income rises. Duh,
Your proposing a modification of sales tax doesn't affect that calculation, unless you twist the sales tax into grossly unnatural shapes to avoid the issue.
My concern about the FAIR Tax is that it would end up being passed without abolishing the IRS, and end up being a federal sales tax on top of everything else.
Yes. That's the fly in all the reform ointments. Unless you abolish the income tax at the same time you enact the FAIR Tax, you're going to have both. And EVEN if you abolish the income tax, the next time congress wants a few more dollars they'll just bring it back.
Again, the problem is not the taxation, the problem is the spending.
Taxes should be abolished.
That's a viable option, but it would require abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back to using money issued by the Treasury. The most savage plutocrats in the world would violently oppose that.
in discarding income taxes, it would get rid of the financial inquisitor that's required by a system that monitors and takes a piece of everybody's wages and salaries
No it wouldn't, it would just change the name.
Wrong. The FairTax would make most monitoring of our lives necessitated by the income tax unnecessary.
Just make employers pay all their employees income taxes.. What's the difference?
>>Many people resent the tax agency and shun its employees.
good. if nobody works @IRS does it exist?
There aren't enough auditors on earth to squeeze every dime out of "rich corporations, small businesses, millionaires and billionaires."
It would require someone going over every transaction: "Prove that this dinner with Ms. Vavavoom in Las Vegas was a business discussion." Being as it is far easier to audit individuals - because they don't get to deduct most household spending like grocery bills or trips to McDonalds - maybe the tax code should eliminate all taxes generated from business net profits. Just tax the amount passed through to the owners. Of course, there would still need to be some auditors who would look into why Mr. Jones, the sole proprietor of a business, has such a lavish lifestyle but reports no
business income because of the business' frequent and costly excursions to conference with Ms. Vavavoom.
The fair-est tax out there is a flat (or barely graduated – say 10/15/20%) personal income tax with no deductions.
As an added bonus, if there is no corporate income tax, there is no *need* for personal business-expense deductions (Because that provides a clear incentive for even the smallest business to incorporate or form a LLC, the point of ‘pass through’ businesses ceases to exist).
The catch is, in that world you have to have a legal structure to prevent people from turning their households into corporations & claiming their regular-employee paychecks as corporate income. Also, a lot less 'independent contractors' working normally-salaried-employee type jobs for the same reason....
think that's my fave headline so far too.
Making money online is more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I received $18376 last month. It's an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office jobs and even a little child can do this and earn money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page..... https://work7.pages.dev/
IIRC, all but one Reason.com writer expressed a preference for Biden over Trump. To see them lament his policies now is laughable. Fuck reason.con. In a just world, them and everyone who voted for the senile old child molester would be the ONLY people the IRS goes after.
Well, I think we can show some leniency for those who regret and acknowledge their prior support of Biden. It is the ones who still support CorvetteJoe and his policies that should be singled out.
I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year ago I used to be unemployed during an atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis. I used to be endowed with these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody..
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> https://dailyworls7.blogspot.com/
As much as I'd favor abolishing the IRS and moving to a simplified tax system I am not sure I'd support the proposed sales tax with its exclusions and rebate system.
If you want a universal sales tax instead of an income tax, that's fine. Instead of some convoluted rebate system for the poor maybe just tax the types of purchase they make at a much lower rate and drop the corporate tax exclusions.
The rebates are for everyone, not just the poor. Nothing "convoluted" about them.
Some have been saying it's Universal Basic Income in disguise. Is that true; everyone gets a Gov-Check no matter what spending has occurred to collect taxes from? Or is it going to require a bunch of spending receipts to get?
Yes, everyone gets the rebate check. No, it has no resemblance to UBI.
LOL... Alrighty then.... 🙂 If you say so...
If its UBI then so is the standard deduction for income taxes.
Wrong. Standard deductions aren't tax credits (payable).
Um, no.
The standard deduction is not refundable – the most it can do is reduce your tax liability to zero, it does not actually place other people’s money in your pocket (by giving you back more than you paid in).
The prebates absolutely do give back more than people pay in.
The EITC and other refundable credits are the closest thing you get to ‘UBI’ in the current tax code, except… They are only available to those with very low incomes – so it is not universal.
The problem the FairTax people ran into, that makes them support UBI, is their obsession with finding a way for the government to stop collecting annual income data from citizens (since if you don’t have income data, you can’t limit any given benefit to those below a specific income).
The FairTax folks also don’t bother to say how they will handle other means-tested benefits: Does everyone qualify for Medicaid, TANF, SNAP and so on now, since the government no longer has a means to verify their income?
And other than the very poor no one is going to spend less in the sales tax than they get back in the prebate. In practice it works out the same.
So the Welfare system get a 2-Times boost.
Spend other people's money = Get MORE other people's money.
the government no longer has a means to verify their income?
Of course they would—they can ask. Those who wish to volunteer that information as a condition of eligibility for a program could do so.
Reason's Joe Lancaster already did a good job of breaking down the bill
No, he didn't. He got fundamental aspects of it wrong.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here………….>>> http://www.smartcash1.com
I'm fairly confident that one day we'll have a Federal sales tax AND the existing income tax. They are determined to feed the beast.
Abolishing the IRS is completely do-able but it would require State's to Collect and pay Federal Taxes which is probably the best idea.. Going BACK to the original USA...
This Fair Tax sounds worse and worse all the time. Why it sounds exactly like leftards Universal Basic Income proposal.
How about.....................
A USA taxing system instead of a National Sozialist(Nazi)-Empire one. Where 'National' politicians are charged for gangland criminal charges every-time they attempt to STEAL from people things they were never granted by the people's LAW to STEAL for.
The Constitution grants the federal government the explicit permission to lay *and collect* taxes.
What it does not grant, is any authority for the federal government to be funded by payments from state governments.
Collecting taxes from the people & the businesses they form is the ONLY Constitutional method of funding the federal government.
BULLSH*T.... Where the F does it say that?
That's EXACTLY the way the Union of State's was formed.
Care to adlib some more BS to it?
...And yes; It does grant them to lay and collect taxes.
IT DOESN'T and by the 10th AMENDMENT it RESTRICTS them from using those taxes for wealth redistribution and 10,000,000 other National Sozialist(Nazi)-Empire building scheme's they have been doing.....
several presidents—or their zealous underlings—have directed the IRS to use its formidable police powers to harass or punish enemies
Since the Fair Tax has no chance, how about a law prohibiting such "direction"?
It would be no surprise to see Democrats jump in line with this.
It's Universal Basic Income 101....
That "bipartisan" bill.
My favorite tax reform was Forbe's flat tax. Why Republicans didn't nominate him is still beyond my comprehension. But basically in short, a flat tax and a 1040 form that fits on a postcard.
If your tax return is longer than a postcard then something is wrong with the system.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here………….>>> http://www.smartcash1.com
If there tax law, there have to be tax enforcers. It's that simple
Whether you call them the IRS, or the tax division of the FBI, or whatever... They have to exist, and they have to have the same sort of law-enforcement powers as other agencies.
The idea of a world where everyone does the right thing voluntarily is just not possible with actual humans.
Everybody has a "new plan" on how to use Gov-Guns to STEAL....
Because that's what National Sozialist(Nazi's) do.
alleged abuses of power inside the tax agency
“Alleged”
Fuck you, CNN.
-jcr
A simple and fair flat tax WILL NEVER HAPPEN in the US for a very simple reason. Our complex tax code is a direct result of the 10th Amendment.
The Federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over even a tiny fraction of what it tries to control. Since Congress cannot make laws that fly in the face of the 10th Amendment (well they do, but they tend to get stricken down in court), our government has realized, you may not be able to create a federal law, but you can sure create a tax, or a deduction, rebate, etc. You can have just as much control over the citizens of the states with tax incentives (or punishments).
So if we went with a flat tax, what would the federal government lose? Power, control and influence over its citizens. I can't see a world where our federal legislators would relinquish that kind of power.
Gov-Gun - Power, Control and Influence over every single citizens individual freedoms/rights.....
90% of what today's government does is right there.
What to do when the government starts working for criminals instead of to ensure Liberty and Justice for all.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------->>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
A flat tax would seem to discriminate against A-cup broads and those getting a nail in their tire.
I can't remember whose idea it was - it might even have been Ron Paul's - that the Feds simply charge each state an amount of money pro-rated depending on population, and let states work out how to raise the funds themselves. No need for IRS then,
This is clearly consistent with GOP thinking about taxes, states' rights, etc. but would of course be opposed by them for obvious reasons.
Straight 12% flat federal income tax with no deductions would be reasonable to me.
No matter what form taxes take, some version of the IRS would be required for administration.
A national sales tax, at least theoretically, would require fewer agents since they would only have to audit businesses. However, this would hit many low income households particularly hard, unless certain categories of goods (e.g., food, clothing, medicine) were exempt, but that would complicate the system and require more administrators.
A flat tax might require fewer agents than the current system but more than would be required by a no-exemption national sales tax, and it would continue to miss those who deal primarily in cash or barter.
The main problem is that the federal government is spending too much on too many things that are not explicitly allowed under a strict Constitutional interpretation.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM