Everything a 2016 presidential candidate needs to know about tax reform

[JeansBrother]

Everything a 2016 presidential candidate needs to know about tax re...

by Maureen Collins

Over 70 percent of Americans think our tax system needs major changes and reform. So if you’re running for President in 2016, you’re going to need to sort through all the different tax reform proposals out there. Luckily, Heritage Foundation economists Curtis Dubay and David Burton have just published “A Tax Reform Primer for the 2016 Presidential Candidates.”

Why should candidates care about tax reform? Dubay and Burton write:

The country needs tax reform because the tax code stifles economic freedom, preventing the economy from being vibrant and prosperous. Fundamental tax reform would alleviate the harm caused by the tax system and significantly increase the size of the economy. This stronger economic growth would substantially improve the incomes of all Americans and enhance economic opportunities.

The primer lists the five principles of any good tax reform, and then details four tax reform plans: the traditional flat tax, the new flat tax, the business transfer tax, and a national sales tax such as the Fair Tax. You can read the full primer here. 

Do you support tax reform? If so, tell us why in the comments.

[Jerseygal]

Good post, JB. I'm for a flat tax on earned income...not retirement, not investments, and no long form short form schedule this and that crap! We could all handle one or two percent right? And if we dump a bunch of those useless alphabet departments, it would be more than enough!

[JeansBrother]

Whatever we change to will be better than the abomination that the Congress and lobbyists have created since passage of the 16th Amendment.  It appears to me that a flat tax on income is the most likely candidate unless the 16th Amendment is modified. 

[Toddy Littman]

Tax system I'd like to see:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

The portion struck is what was intended to by struck by the 14th Amendment but instead they struck the entire sentence from "Representatives and direct taxes.... to "....all other persons."  This left the government with no lawful taxing system, while, at the same time, notice it is qualified with a variety of restrictions by formula.  Well with that all struck out, you see why we ended up with the 16th Amendment.

See, by the tax system based on the census, and apportioned, there'd be a lag time between population increases, which of course isn't in the government's favor.

I haven't found another timeline, but notice how this timeline is based on every 10 years.... could you imagine government running on what it can tax, apportioned among the several states, pursuant to the census, every 10 years?

But instead we're allowing the government to assume a 10 times more active financial stake in our economy merely by accepting the annual revenue gathering ritual of April 15th.

I can only hope that one day we understand how the illegal transfer of wealth to government, under the guise of taxation, while often spending money on things that are outside Constitutional Limits, is an unwarranted theft that will undermine the nation's existence, as well as our own.

[Robin]

I'm for a flat tax as well. Get RID of the corrupt IRS and them intimidating people, while not paying their taxes.