How to Get Rid of the Income Tax
This web portal is dedicated to reclaiming the freedoms enumerated in
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and that have been limited
or even eliminated by the U.S. tax code, the USA PATRIOT Act and
numerous other laws.
Are you frustrated by the time,
cost and complexity of having to comply with thousands of pages of
obscure rules in order to avoid obscene penalties for not filing your
income tax return and paying the taxes that are due? Does it annoy you
to have to pay top dollar to people like me to help you with that
unpleasant chore? If so, I don't blame you a bit.
But how frustrated are you?
Are you ready to dismember the
income tax -- or do you just want to adjust the system to make it
simpler, fairer and less costly for you? If you are at a really high
level of frustration and are ready to contemplate a radical change,
then you might be ready for the "Fair Tax".
received an email inviting me to sign a petition to advocate a change
from the income tax to a national consumption based tax called the
"Fair Tax." I hadn't really looked at this proposal for a long time so
I followed the link to their web site at www.fairtax.org and read a number of the explanations on that site.
The first time I encountered this concept a few years ago, I summarily
rejected it for three reasons. One was that it is designed to be
revenue neutral. I couldn't think of a reason to support a tax that was
going to give the government the same amount of money to waste. The
second reason was that I was under the impression that the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution would not be repealed. Today, I found
that repealing the 16th Amendment is a major component of the "Fair
Tax". The third reason is because I'm aware that the U.S. adopted an
income tax system (in 1913) because a majority of taxpayers felt the
prevaling system of tarriffs and excise taxes was unfair. The question
is whether the "Fair Tax" overcomes the problems that led to the income
In spite of the fact that I'm a CPA and have chosen to
make a living by helping people to cope with the income tax, I truly
hate this form of taxation and believe it has been a major cause of the
economic problems we are experiencing. My primary objection is that
income is such a vague and hard to measure base for any kind of tax.
Accountants, lawyers, economists and politicians all have different
ideas about what constitutes income. With the income tax, the
politicians can simply define income to be whatever they want it to be.
There simply is no way to have a simple or fair tax system based on the
elusive concept of income.
The IRS has become a massive bureacracy that bully's taxpayers, engages
in fear propoganda and considers your income and assets to be the
property of the government. Privacy has been lost. When we tax income,
we end up with less of it. The income tax contributes to the negative
savings rate in the U.S. It fosters an industry that spends billions to
influence legislation that favors one group of taxpayers at the expense
of others. The cost of administering the system is huge and the cost to
taxpayers in terms of their time and the fees they pay to tax
professionals is much larger.
Because the tax system is so easy to
manipulate, the Government creates serious distortions and uncertainty
that discourages taxpayers from embarking on ventures that might result
in more jobs. The FICA, Medicare and other employment related taxes
(and the administrative burden) discourage people from hiring others
and creating new jobs. Our multi-national corporations are at a
disadvantage in competing with their counterparts from other countries
because our corporate tax rates are significantly higher than those of
most of our trading partners. The income tax subsidizes debt financing
compared to equity financing and has contributed to the home mortgage
Without an individual or corporate income tax, payroll taxes and estate
taxes, the U.S. would quickly become a Mecca for investors around the
world. Much of our lost privacy could be restored. Personal savings
rates would explode. Our big corporations would enjoy an advantage over
those based in other countries and more of their world-wide earnings
would be reinvested in the U.S. There would be less incentive to
outsource jobs to other countries. We would not be subjected to the
abuses of over-zealous tax collectors. We could hire someone to work
for a few hours without worrying about employment taxes and the time
consuming reporting duties that are now required.
After some reflection, I've changed my mind about opposing a
consumption based tax that is revenue neutral. Even though there is no
immediate tax savings because of a cut in government spending, it may
be the only way to placate all of the people who are currently
receiving compensation or benefits from the Federal Government. Without
revenue neutrality, nothing will happen.
I still believe that if a
federal consumption tax is passed without repealing the 16th Amendment,
we will end with both an income tax and a sales type tax. But repeal of
the 16th Amendment is a major component of the Fair Tax proposal. As
for my argument that we would simply be going back to the situation
that led to the passage of the 16th Amendment before 1913, the "Fair
Tax" concept does provide for some significant relief for the lower
income members of the country -- without which it would never have any
chance of being passed. A monthly "prebate" would be provided through
the Social Security Administration that would be based on offsetting
the cost of the "Fair Tax" on expenditures equal to the poverty level
for diferent family sizes. This would (or should) appeal to those who
are advocates of a progressive tax system because it has the same
effect as tax credits, low tax rates and exemptions that benefit the
lower income taxpayers more than the higher income taxpayers.
As a tax accountant, passage of the "Fair Tax" and repeal of the 16th
Amendment would obviously force me to find other ways to make a living.
But in exchange for the many benefits that I perceive from a "Fair
Tax", I welcome the challenge -- if I live long enough to see it
happen. I expect that the vast majority of my colleagues in the tax
business will consider me to have lost my mind and to be in need of
serious therapy. But I challenge them to consider the drawbacks of the
income tax system, the severe penalties that can be imposed on them for
hundreds of potential mishaps, the litigation risk that they face and
the destructive impact of the income tax on our economy and personal
In addition, many of my friends in the Libertarian community may be
apalled at my support of the "Fair Tax" because most of them don't see
any justification for a revenue neutral tax. They argue that the
problem is the magnitude of government spending, not the method of
collecting taxes. And, as pointed out in an article on the Ludwig von Mises
web site, the actual details of the "Fair Tax" bill (HR 25) do not
require repeal of the 16th Amendment prior to adoption of a national
consumption tax -- so we could indeed end up with both.
consumption tax is far more visible than the income tax and should
result in persistent pressure on the politicians to reduce the rate of
tax and related spending. In addition, I see no way that we can scrap
the income tax and cut government dramatically because of the many
people who benefit from various forms of government spending. As for
not repealing the 16th Amenment before adopting a consumption tax,
there is nothing to prevent the government from adopting a consumption
tax at any time.
This isn't to say that I don't see any problems or that I agree with
every part of the "Fair Tax" proposal.
Among other things, everyone who
sells any kind of goods or services could have to become a tax
collector. In many states, there is no sales tax on services -- so
small service businesses are not curently required to collect and pay over sales
taxes. Also, in most states, someone who sells goods over the Internet
to out-of-state buyers is not required to collect taxes on those sales.
And not all 50 of the states collect sales taxes, so the Federal
Government would have to establish tax collection administration in
Another problem is that if money earned in the U.S. is
sent to families in other countries, it would escape the U.S.
tax. And I agree with the critics that there would be a huge
incentive for an underground economy that could make the bootlegging
era look tame by comparison. There would also be lobbying pressure from
various groups to be exempt from having to pay the tax (such as
charitable organizations) or from having to collect the tax. (Would
home workers have to collect and pay over the "Fair Tax"?)
Finally, would the "Fair Tax" be imposed on the shipment of goods to
foreign buyers or on providing services to foreign companies or
persons? If so, how would that affect the ability of U.S. workers to
compete in world markets?
Although the Fair Tax does not reqire the elimination of the income tax
as a pre-condition, if it were to pass, it would provide a politically
practical way bridge the gap between elimination of the income tax and
establishing an alternative tax system. I see no realistic possibility
that the 16th Amendment would be repealed without some way to placate
all of the diverse voter groups that would otherwise be unwilling to
make such a drastic change.
For more food for thought, visit the "Fair Tax" web site at http://www.fairtax.org and http://www.fairtaxblog.com.
And if you enter "Fair Tax" in Google, you will encounter a lot of
interesting web sites with diverse points of view about this still
from the International Wealth Protection Monitor
Return to the Liberty Portal Home Page
While the information in this web site is believed to be from reliable
sources and is believed to be accurate, it is not intended to represent
legal, tax or financial advice for any reader of any part of this web
Inc . Copyright, 2009 All rights reserved. Offshore Press,
Box 8137, Prairie Village, KS 66208. (913) 362-9667.
by Angela Farley Vernon
K. Jacobs, Webauthor