The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

The ‘Max Tax’ Amendment to the Constitution

By on 12.21.12 @ 6:08AM

Advocates of genuine fairness would have it no other way.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified one hundred years ago in 1913. It stated simply: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Given President Obama’s insistence that individual tax rates on the rich, as he defines “rich,” based on unelaborated Obamian principles of “fairness” that appear to have no bounds, it is time that we amend our Constitution to limit the ability of our Federal Government, and our state and local governments, to tax.

First, a word about the principle of fairness. Arguably, based on IRS figures, fairness would dictate that the tax rate on the “rich” should be decreased while the tax rate on the middle income should be increased. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on this page on December 5: “[A]ccording to official IRS data, the top 1 percent of income earners pay 39 percent of all federal income taxes, three times their 13 percent share of income, and [] the middle class, the middle 20 percent of income earners, pays less than 3 percent of all federal income taxes, while earning 15 percent of income…”

And I don’t understand why it is fair to have the majority vote to increase taxes on the “rich.” Why is it fair for people to vote to increase the taxes of some others but exempt themselves? I might add here that I find it remarkable that exit polls showed that 60% favored increasing the taxes of the wealthiest 2%. Why do I find this remarkable? Because only 60% favored it. Why would not 99% (everyone in the 98% and half of those in the top 2%) favor it? It may be that the middle class may know they will be next. As the President stated at a private home in Virginia on December 6, “Everybody is going to have to share in some sacrifice, but it starts with folks who are in the best position to sacrifice…” (italics added). It starts with them, but will soon be coming to the rest of you.

In France, President François Hollande has proposed raising the highest tax rates to 75%. In principle, there is no reason that such rates, or higher rates, could not be imposed in this country. When the Sixteenth Amendment to our Constitution was drafted, it should have included some form of cap. It is now right to put caps into our Constitution rather than to rely on statutory law since, as have seen, statutory law is subject to the vagaries of a vague, unprincipled President and his Democratic Senate majority who think they have received a mandate from the people in the 2012 election that exceeds the mandate of the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the very same election.

While a Balanced Budget Amendment may still be useful and have its independent rationale, it is time to limit the government’s ability to tax. It is proper to insert such a limit in the Constitution because limiting government was the rationale of the American Revolution and is the subject of much of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

The limits should appear in two ways. First, some forms of taxation should be barred — by all levels of government: federal, state and local. The precedent is California’s Prop 13 of 1978 limiting taxation of real property.

Two such forms we should consider are estate taxes and taxes on dividends. The assets that form your estate at death were taxed at the time they entered your estate. There is no reason to tax them again when these assets leave your estate and go to your charities, spouses, children, grandchildren, and other beneficiaries.

Similarly, profits of corporations were taxed before dividends were declared. Dividends are paid after corporate taxes are paid. There is no reason to tax these dividends when stockholders receive them. At one time stocks were owned by the “rich.” That is no longer the case. A huge percentage of Americans own stock directly, or through their personal retirement plans (401ks and IRAs), or through their union or employer pension plans.

A third form is the exclusion from taxation by all levels of government of money spent on health care. This is treating health care like food. Many states exempt groceries from sales taxes. Health care and food are necessities. Instead of narrowing Health Savings Accounts as Obamacare did, we should expand the non-taxation of health care expenses. This would help the poor, the middle class, the elderly, the chronically ill, immensely.

The second form in which limits should appear in an amendment to the federal Constitution is a numerical percentage cap. We have had an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for 30 years. We should have a Maximum Tax. Just as a taxpayer now first prepares a tax return according to normal tax principles, and then prepares an AMT, the taxpayer would then prepare a return that shows the Maximum Tax and would pay the lesser amount.

The language of the Constitutional amendment may be like the following: “No person shall pay taxes on gross income or on property in a year that shall exceed X% in all federal taxes, Y% in all state taxes, and Z% in any other governmental taxes.” The language should be kept simple.

I write “all federal taxes” and “all state taxes” because I would include every form of federal taxes, every form of state taxes, every form of local taxes — income, personal property, real property, sales taxes, occupational taxes, excise taxes. So limited, no level of government could shift taxation from a limited form to an unlimited form of income or property.

Businesses could continue to grow and pay additional taxes in absolute dollar amounts; it is the percentages that would be capped. Also, I would not necessarily distinguish between individuals and their businesses, or between small and large corporations.

I would allow for an exception to the federal cap in the case of a national emergency — declared by the president and confirmed by two-thirds of Senate and two-thirds of governors, for a term of one year, renewable by same process. We could consider how to anticipate an emergency limited to one or more states that did not arise to the level of a national emergency.

I would also want to consider how to address the temptation of a taxing authority trying to bypass these caps by artificially increasing the value of assets.

Maybe a Max Tax Constitutional Amendment should be included in the negotiations on the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling. If Obama succeeds in raising tax rates, maybe it should be the last time any President or Congress does so.

About the Author

James M. Thunder is a Washington, D.C. attorney.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) |

Von Mises Jr| 12.21.12 @ 7:26AM

It is more than a 100 year taxing problem. It is a one-hundred year problem of having a Federal government that conducts almost all its functions outside the Constitution.
For instance, the Social Security Ponzi scheme was unconstitutional since it was not an Enumerated Power even before the Congress stole $2.54 trillion in contributions/taxes. Medicare was unconstitutional before they bankrupted the program. The Federal government is not permitted under the Constitution to establish a Department of Education or Energy.
The problem is not that we don't have enough rules on taxation. It is that we have taxation for powers never granted to the Federal government.

Merry Christmas to all. Enjoy your Holiday if we survive the day. The weather in the Northeast tells me that the Mayans were on to something. Wind has been bending the trees all night and rain hitting the windows sideways.

mike 3/505| 12.21.12 @ 9:14AM

"The problem is not that we don't have enough rules on taxation. It is that we have taxation for powers never granted to the Federal government."

THAT is what we need to fix. As it stands now, the federal government can tax for ANY purpose, constitutional or not. That is what needs to change.

Harry the Horrible| 12.21.12 @ 10:19AM

If you can figure out how to sell that message, I'll vote for it; I won't even mind it when gores some of my favorite oxen.

Merry Christmas, all!

vtwin| 12.21.12 @ 11:29AM

Under our Constitution the Supreme Court decides matters of constitutionality and the constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html

And, the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of Medicare, Medicaid, and both the Department of Education or Energy …and Obama signature first term accomplishment Obamacare.

Merry Christmas Von Mises Jr and a Merry Christmas to ALL my conservative friends.

Von Mises Jr| 12.21.12 @ 11:55AM

Davis v Boston and Davis v Edison Electric in 1937 ruled that the monies collected for Social Security were only legal since they are a tax. The Federal government made the case that benefits paid and so-called contributions are not connected. The Federal government owes you nothing from your Social Security taxes.

Merry Christmas twitvin.

Jacob McCandles| 12.21.12 @ 3:26PM

Oh, is this why our national debt is only quoted as being 16 Trillion, and not 222 Trillion? That extra 200 trillion is not really, debt, because it doesn't have to be paid (SS, Medicare, Medicaid)

Von Mises Jr| 12.22.12 @ 8:25AM

Correct, Jacob. Sometime they even separate the $16T into about $11T owed to foreign governments and the $5T owed to Americans that bought Government Bonds. But this is all referred to as the Hard Debt.
The Soft National Debt includes Social Security that has $2.54T in IOU's plus ran about $165B and $96B the last two years in deficit respectively. Then you add the Medicare, unfunded Federal Pensions etc....and you come up with a number ranging from $100T to the $222T as you mention. It becomes vague since we are projecting deficits in the plans for the future and the timeline is probably different in some of these projections.
But with a $14T GDP, it all becomes moot since to pay back even $16T when you don’t even have an economy that large means that you must pay it back out of surplus (austerity) or grow the economy. Cutting taxes grows the economy. Raising taxes will actually make it much worse since the private sector will continue to shrink.
Moreover, it is not really GDP that matters, but the creation of wealth. If China produces tankers full of goods and sells them to Americans that cut each other’s hair or book their vacations, no wealth is produced in America. So in addition to being broke and in debt to the Chinese, we have no goods of our own to use or sell to repay the Chinese. This is why economist tracks the manufacturing and similar indices. That is more important than mere money transfers.
Merry Christmas, Jacob.

Quartermaster| 12.21.12 @ 1:52PM

All branches of FedGov are obliged to live by teh constitution and do so they must be able to read it and apply. SCOTUS has become the arbiter of constitutionality not by law, but by abdication.

Add in the fact that SCOTUS routinely ignores the constitution when it wants a certain outcome, and then turns around and actually applies it when that is convenient and you get 9 shysters that are lawless.

The decision uphold social security was one of the lawless rulings. FedGov has no authority to legislate in the area. Period. Either the enumerated powers apply, or you might as well throw the entire thing out to the outhouse and use it to wipe yourself with. FedGov, alas, has done it on an almost daily basis and we aren't much longer for this world because of it.

CJW| 12.21.12 @ 6:40PM

vtwin, Merry Christmas.

Appleby| 12.21.12 @ 7:31AM

I think Obama's core problem is that he feels personally very guilty because he has a lot more money than the Brothas have. But, like my British socialist friends in the same boat, he doesn't feel guilty enough to give up HIS OWN privileged position -- so he deflects his ire to everybody else who is just as wealthy as he is, to make himself feel better.

Warrior| 12.22.12 @ 9:05AM

Not even close. His studies of Marx and Alinsky and paternal relationship to Frank Marshall Davis guide him.

RJ| 12.21.12 @ 8:27AM

While we are at it, we need to address perhaps the biggest federal tax today, which is the Fed debasing the currency by issuing, what is in effect, counterfeit money. It led to hard times for the nation in the 1780s and is doing so again, although we have yet to feel the full punch of the Fed's actions. It needs to be stopped.

buckeyeman| 12.21.12 @ 10:12AM

Easy. Simply refuse to increase the debt limit.

Stan Redmond| 12.21.12 @ 4:05PM

How will we pay for Obamaphones?

RJ| 12.22.12 @ 1:38AM

I wish they wouldn't increase the debt limit. Expanding the debt cannot go on and we saw that the spending "reductions" were illusory last time, as they have been every time we insist upon reducing spending.

Al Adab| 12.21.12 @ 8:29AM

Taxing income of individuals is nothing less than a taking of property. Perhaps the founders understood the dangers as they prohibited such taxes in the Constitution. It took an amendment to allow the federal government to tax incomes.

Beyond that, the establishment of various tax brackets and rates based on source and volume is just as egregious. If incomes can or should be taxed then rates must be the same for every dollar and every source. Anything else is not only unjust, but likely violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 11:07AM

My understanding is the Congress could still tax income even before the 16th. In fact Congress can tax anything. However, the main stipulation is apportionment.

The 16th was instituted to clear up the question as to whether an income tax had to be apportioned. The 16th said no, all income from whatever source derived, regardless of apportionment, was subject to tax.

Personally, I think the answer is not tinkering around the edges, but simplification. Most people would not mind paying higher taxes if it was just one rate for all, no legalese or loophole shennanigans, and the like.

Al Adab| 12.21.12 @ 2:28PM

I think that is so. The flat rate, if incomes must be taxed at all, is what I alluded to. There is simply no justification for treating persons or their dollars differently simply on the basis of amount or source. In fact it is well established that increases in the marginal rates serve to retard economic growth. Why make more if the next dollar is treated differently from the one before it?

Merry Christmas to you and yours and to all our AmSpec correspondents. Some day we really must have that blogger convention.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 2:37PM

And many happy returns...

Taxguy| 12.22.12 @ 7:10AM

If you are correct, and I believe you are, then how can it be justified to tax dividends and capital gains at a lower rate than the rate for ordinary income?

Al Adab| 12.22.12 @ 12:29PM

Taxguy:
Your point is well made. It should be clear that the tax rates on "normal" income must be too high or the tax gurus in government would not set lower rates to encourage investment. The rates are used to punish and reward as the government policy makers see fit. Such a situation is anathema to a free society. All incomes should be taxed, if at all, at the same rate and the existing dividend and capital gains rate would be a good number to pick.

KennesawJack| 12.21.12 @ 9:01AM

To All of you that have made my visits here during the past year a pleasure and a much needed respite from the drivel of the left, I hope you have the Merriest of Christmases. To Occam, Frank, and all of our Jewish friends, I hope your Hannukah was a happy time and to All, my best wishes for a Happy and Prosperous New Year. Last post until after the New Year (gotta go do our turn for Christmas with my wife's 92 year old mother in the frozen northlands of Pennsylvania) so will be traveling. Tim, thanks for the best analogy contest in the history of western civilization (or any civilization, for that matter) and for quarterbacking this crew along the way.
Frohe Weinachten, Feliz Navidad, Рождеством Христовым, Joyeaux Noel, Merry Christmas! and most of all, God Bless all of you , our troops, and this glorious country of ours. See you in 2013.

CJW| 12.21.12 @ 10:21AM

Merry Christmas, KJack. Remember the speed limit in Pa is 55 and 65.

Al Adab| 12.21.12 @ 2:29PM

Merry Christmas to you both and to all.

CJW| 12.21.12 @ 4:47PM

Thanks, Al Adab, Merry Christmas

LarryK| 12.21.12 @ 9:04AM

As Ray Stevens sings, "If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for Uncle Sam!"

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 9:18AM

Seriously, American Spectator, where are your principles?

Why publish an article seeking for an amendment to fix a bad amendment? The problem is NOT progressive income tax rates, but income tax itself. There are plenty of people who have come up with all the reasons that the 16th amendment is not Legally binding, etc. I'm not a tax lawyer or constitutional scholar, so I don't know if their arguments are good or bad. Regardless of its Legality, what I DO know is that the 16th amendment is a bad Law.

I bet most so-called conservatives want to retain the income tax because they hold, in their own minds, some level of what "acceptable" government ought to look like. But that's the trouble. I'll bet that if we could shrink the government so that it had to survive on the original Constitution's funding mechanisms, most conservatives, including the readership here would vote to chuck the whole damn thing and become socialist--we're all too used to the security blanket provided by mamma govt.

If we permit the bureaucrats access to our incomes then the government will grow. no matter what. No matter what "clever" finagling you do, no matter how many "clever" amendments you try to sew out of whole cloth, rates will continue to grow higher and the government will continue to spend a larger and larger percentage of GDP.

That's why we're about to crash...

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 11:10AM

If we continue with the original Constitution's funding mechanisms, we'll be unprepared to defend ourselves. Jefferson and Madison found this out with respect to British impressment and the War of 1812.

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 12:43PM

see. That's what I mean. Vern, buddy ol' pal, you made my point. You are the sort of fake-o conservative that thinks we need the government taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing and taxing

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 2:40PM

No, I'm just not an anarchist, nor do I think Jeffersonian agrarianism is the best way to run a country. After all, Jefferson's friend Madison eventually signed the bill creating the 2nd bank of the US. He realized that America had to live in the modern world. The problem is not with central banks, but with terrible monetary policy (Keynesianism).

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 4:47PM

well, you're speaking in non sequiturs.

The point that I was making is that the Income Tax is a big fricken problem. But you (apparently) and most other conservatives don't have the balls to favor getting rid of the income tax.

You may not know, but Jefferson and all the other off-topic founding fathers were long dead before the 16th amendment was ratified.

Bob K| 12.21.12 @ 5:22PM

It doesn't matter whether or not one has the balls to favor getting rid of the 16th Amendment. These things have to be voted on. What matters is whether the votes are there to do it.

In the matter of it's passage 42 of 48 state legislatures ratified it over the course of 4 years between 1909 and 1913.

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 5:55PM

yeah, but that's the attitude that stifles the conversation. People like you say "these things have to be voted on" as a means to put a gag order on the idea.

Which is why most Republicans wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Ron Paul. Well, You gotta take a chance sometime

Bob K| 12.21.12 @ 8:02PM

Article V of the Constitution tells you what to do to amend and ratify new articles to the Constitution. Look it up and decide how you want to go about doing it and then you can begin the organizing.

You gotta take a chance sometime.

Taxguy| 12.22.12 @ 7:16AM

You do not know that the 16th amendment is bad law, because it is not. If it is bad, tell us why. Growth of government has nothing to do with the income tax, it has to do with government's ability to borrow and unprincipled legislators borrowing and spending. If spending were limited to funding raised by the income tax, we would not be where we are today.

Murl| 12.21.12 @ 9:45AM

You can argue to amend the Constitution regarding how much we pay in taxes, but it will never solve the overriding problem; that we are simply slaves to a government in every facet of our life. When we are born, we are taxed by a hospital for creating life. When we are schooled, we are taxed for being educated. When we work, we are taxed for working. When we eat, we are taxed for this. Even when we defecate, we are taxed for doing so.

We also never "own" anything. Skip tax payments on any of your personal possessions, or homestead and see how quickly the government swoops in to take it from you.

There are people sitting in jail right now that are there because they failed to pay taxes on something. There are even parents who are there because they failed to pay their child support "tax".

The summation of this exercise is that we are taxed from before we are born to after we are dead. We are born into a world where we are nothing more than slaves to a government that controls us through their taxation. Jefferson's notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be met with an aesterick, which should state, "as long as your taxes are paid in full".

Bob K| 12.21.12 @ 10:19AM

Murl,

Child support is not a tax. It is an obligation.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 11:12AM

Paying taxes is what separates conservativism from anarchism.

Bob K| 12.21.12 @ 9:55AM

The big problem for the Middle Classes is not the Income Tax and they could care less about it! And since they vote in vastly higher numbers than the so called "rich" do one can be sure that it is going to be around in some form or another for a long time.

The problem the Middle Class recognizes is that it pays the brunt of the State, Local, Municipal, and Education taxes (if not the Income Taxes) which are necessary if our Great American Republic is going to keep feeding Leviathan in Washington DC!

And these taxes the Middle Class pays are basically taxes on the little bit of wealth they have accumulated in their Real Estate and savings.

Yet 2 or 3 times a week we get a column like this deploring the INCOME taxes that people who own real wealth are required to pay!

Let me repeat: The Middle Classes do not give a crap about this! And they vote accordingly.

And because, in our Democratic age, in this Democratic Republic, they far outnumber the people who have real wealth, it is one of the reasons why the Republican party lost this Presidential election.

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 10:49AM

you might be crazy. There's no cohesion in what you wrote

Bob K| 12.21.12 @ 5:02PM

AKraver.

I glad you brought the word "cohesion" into this.

What I said, in essence, is that there can be no real cohesion in a country that is run on democratic principles. Each group has separate issues they want addressed.

My comment was not complicated so think about that for a few minutes.

The Republican party has been ignoring Middle Class issues for too long. If you can't understand that you might not be too bright.

pogybait| 12.21.12 @ 10:05PM

O.K. so the middle class recognizes the tax folly. However, generationally taxation has become a cultural artifact because Congress can use its taxing power to compel behavior by imposing confiscatory taxes. Granted, changing fear or the tyranny of taxation will have to start with the states for obvious reasons, as they try to escape the fiscally and morally bankrupt federal government. We may have abolished slavery through the civil war but we have created another form in itself by virtue of the sixteenth amendment. I do think we are beginning to see the basis for the next revolution, even the four justices that dissented from Roberts opinion hinted at this direction.

squalis| 12.21.12 @ 10:17AM

It seems to me Mr. Thunder is asking The New York Sun: Is there really a Santa Clause?

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 10:49AM

touche

Datsun 2000 Mark| 12.21.12 @ 10:45AM

James,
Do you find it a coincidence that the 16th Admendment was passed in 1913....the same year the Glass-Owen Act was passed that created the Federal Reserve? The Fed buys treasure bonds because in knows the government has the *power* to tax the public. That is their insurance policy. Perhaps we should focus on limiting the governments ability to borrow and spend?

AKraver| 12.21.12 @ 10:50AM

no way, man. Go after their ability to tax incomes...and then see how many other problems simply work themselves out.

Kwan| 12.21.12 @ 10:56AM

The insanity is that all the taxes collected by the government are only funding 54% of the government's expenditures. Anybody with the ability to see beyond the next 6 seconds realizes that continuation along this trajectory of out-of-control spending by the Democrats will result in a financial collapse. So what is Alfred E. Obama's solution for this problem? You guessed it: What me worry? http://destinbeachbum.blogspot.....ty-on.html

PCC| 12.21.12 @ 10:57AM

Dear Mr. Thunder,

Please pass the bong.

A more realistic Amendment would state that the federal government may not levy through all forms of taxation more than X% (say, 20%) of the previous year's national economic output.

JayDick| 12.21.12 @ 3:32PM

Problem is, GDP is an estimate and is easy to fudge. The same problem exists with parts of the amendments suggested in the article and with many balanced budget amendments. It is unbelievable how adept the Feds have become at fudging anything with a number in it.

The only balanced budget amendment I have seen that is worth considering is one that says expenditures in any year cannot exceed receipts for the previous year. Even that is not airtight, but it would be more difficult to fudge than the others.

Edward| 12.21.12 @ 11:06AM

I applaud loudly your strike at the heart of the tax beast of Government.

How would the founding fathers correct the aberration of the Sixteenth Amendment? They would apply the language of Equal Protection under the Law, and Equal Application under the law, for which the Sixteenth Amendment does neither. From the Constitution from the Federalist Papers from the writing of the Founding Fathers their words, their wisdom lights the path, it would read as so.

Proposed: Amendment XXVIII
Clause 1. The Sixteenth Article of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Clause 2. Congress shall make no law in establishment of taxation, taxation deductions, or tax subsides, that favors or disfavors any individual, group, and business, corporation, good or service, be they public or private, foreign or domestic
Clause 3. All taxes imposed on Consumption, Exchanges, Duties, Imposts and Excises, Goods and Services, shall be levied at a fixed rate of six percent, no less, no more, domestic or foreign in origin.
Clause 4. All income taxes shall be levied at a flat fixed rate of thirteen percent, be they in origin of individual, business, corporation, or private enterprise be they domestic or foreign origin.
Clause 5. No individual, business, corporation, or private enterprise can be made exempt from any clause within this article.
Edward R Pitchford

Bob K| 12.21.12 @ 5:27PM

And then another clause is voted to be included:

Clause 6. The 2nd Amendment is hereby repealed and made void.

Job| 12.21.12 @ 12:25PM

for my christmas wishlist:

taxes should be 10 percent on goods and services at point of sale period finished the end.
if you have a kid in school pay the tax. etc. if you want firemen to put water on your house fire pay the tax for the service. have a municipal government drop down menu on services you want.
buy a house pay the tax day of sale, point of sale once and for all.
taxes divided between fed, state, and local one third to each for sales and income taxes.
inheritance tax same 10 percent just in case your parents earned their money the old fashioned way which is, "they stole it."

cicero| 12.21.12 @ 2:03PM

Edward - I'll vote for that, if given the chance. The 16th Amandment, when first proposed, called for a maximum rate of taxation of 7%. Our geniuses in the Congress argued against such on the premise that if the 7% limit was installed, the government would spent right up to the limit. At the time, the proposal was for only stealing 2% from the sheep. It was the lack of the limit that allowed our government to take more and more, right up to now, when they take the 28%+, from us, and spend another one/third over revenues. To the scaffold with them.

Al Adab| 12.21.12 @ 2:31PM

Beware of its metamorphasis into a VAT.

Otherwise, absolutely.

Merry Christmas to all.

Jacob McCandles| 12.21.12 @ 3:34PM

My son had to write a constitutional amendment for an 8th grade project. His amendment was simple, he limited federal tax rates to 25% on income. I had told him earlier that cutting tax rates does not mean cutting revenues to the government. His teacher demanded statistics and facts which I provided from Heritage foundations archives. I was surprised to learn that since WWII, despite wide variations in top tax rates, revenue as a percentage of GNP has been stuck around 18-19 percent. It's just that the GNP grows more with lower top rates.

Purp| 12.21.12 @ 5:23PM

FFS, grow up! In the 1950's, under Republican President Eisenhower the top tax rate was 91% !!!

You won't be satisfied until the tax rate is 0%, and since that's nuts, you should and shall be ignored.

You want everything, but you don't want to pay for it... freeloader.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 6:18PM

Not it's really you and your liberal buddies who want everything, and want to use our money to pay for it. Liberalism is the essence of freeloaderism.

Purp| 12.21.12 @ 6:20PM

And, yet, you want to pay 0% tax ... therefore, you want every service the government provides for free...

So who is the freeloader?

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 8:30PM

I pay plenty of taxes. And as I said above only anarchists want to pay 0% taxes. BTW, if you're so gung ho about paying higher taxes, go for it. Send in 95% of your income to the IRS; say it's for the children; they'll understand.

Warrior| 12.22.12 @ 9:10AM

This is where your liberal bullshit clouds common sense. Conservatives want the federal (that's a key distinction) government to only operate within its enumerated powers (the law) as defined in the Constitution. You can live in liberal land and have your local state provide all the social services and feel good shit you want until you all move because of bankruptcy. If it is that important for you liberals to have the federal government provide these services, then you need an amendment to the Constitution.

Rhoetus| 12.21.12 @ 10:09PM

In 1913 the Federal Government didn’t need the money from an Income Tax. It was funded by import duties and excise taxes on distilled spirits. The farmers, workers and merchants that envied Carnegie never dreamed that the 16th Amendment would make them all indentured servants to the government. Envy and Insincerity are the two most destructive human weaknesses.

This about stealing and making it respectable by wrapping it in the American flag and pretty sounding words like fairness and social justice.

topcat52| 12.22.12 @ 10:42AM

Aside from the time it would take to keep track of all sales taxes, which often go to more than one tax authority, and the fact that the federal government currently has no deduction for food (other than the standard deduction, if you use it) this is hardly a simplification. The idea of a total tax burden being limited is interesting, though making it work in practice? One of the problems with tax policy is that even after you simplify, as the 1986 Tax Reform Act did, the Congress still goes about its business re-complicating matters. One thing that always irks me about federal taxes - for entitlements, many income levels depend upon where a person lives, but for the AMT, there is one level for all taxpayers in all States.

Hardcard| 12.22.12 @ 2:22PM

A flat tax 8% across the board no deductions.

sdfhlk | 12.23.12 @ 4:09AM

Merry Christmas,NBA 2012

Rhoetus| 12.23.12 @ 3:20PM

Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com

Stephen Perkins | 12.23.12 @ 10:43PM

I'm a new Spectator reader and it's opinion pieces like this that keep me coming back!

This is an interesting idea however I highly doubt our Congress could agree on an amendment like this because the person most likely to introduce this kind of legislation is Rand Paul and his colleagues view him as cooky. In addition, the maximum tax rate would become a huge debate with Republicans wanting it as low as possible and the Democrats wanting it as high as possible.

Instead, let's just jump on the flat tax bandwagon!

Mike Giles| 12.24.12 @ 9:49AM

I think that before you could get that Amendment passed the general public needs to have some actual idea of who pays what. Not only that, but they need to learn the difference between WEALTH and INCOME. You constantly hear the media use the words interchangeably, but they don't mean the same thing. It is quite possible to be wealthy - on paper - and have little or no income. Until people understand the difference, appeals for the wealthy "to pay their fair share" will be successful.

John Mike | 2.26.13 @ 7:20AM

This is a great constitution. I like it so much. I have read some salient features of American Constitution.

More Articles by James M. Thunder

More Articles From Another Perspective

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

June 19, 2013 | Wayne Woodman

Not Super, But Pretty Good

June 18, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Sober-Minded

June 10, 2013 | Bill Croke

We Used to Call Him Baghdad Jim

June 7, 2013 | Paul Kengor

Christie and a Little History

June 5, 2013 | Kevin Mooney

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/21/the-max-tax-amendment-to-the-c

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|29 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|70 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|17 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.