Proposal for a 28th Amendment

Why does this have to be addressed with an ammendment? that sets a very high bar for passage. Why not let the congress do it's job for a change and address these issues? Ok.....so far they are doing a poor job of addressing any issues, but amendments usually start with them anyway

•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstit ... tamend.htm

I haven't read the whole thing, but the proposed 15% flat tax for individuals seems very extreme to me, and in most cases a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class.

Other flat tax proposals I've seen at least had minimum income you'd have to reach before you are taxed, the rest (say under $30K) is not taxed. So with this proposal, people who are below the poverty level and currently pay no income tax, would now pay 15% on their income. And people whose primary income is Social Security currently pay no tax, but would now have to pay 15%. You can't milk a turnip. Those people couldn't afford such a tax.

Most of the middle class pay well under 15% too (look at the tax you paid and divide by your Adjusted Gross Income), after taking exemptions, deductions (especially the home mortage), and credits.

It would be a nice tax cut for the wealthy, though, but on the backs of most everyone else.

It sounds nice but is honestly too two dimensional and simplistic for running anenterprise as large as the US. Tax code issues should be addressed by the tax code, not the Constitution.

chickaree wrote: It sounds nice but is honestly too two dimensional and simplistic for running anenterprise as large as the US. Tax code issues should be addressed by the tax code, not the Constitution.

Good point. Taxes need some adjustment now and then, especially in an emergency. Changing the Constitution would be a huge roadblock. Any of the Constitution experts here know how long it takes?

Not that I'm a fan of the FAIR tax, but they want to first change the Constitution to ban the income tax before their VAT tax is implemented, so we can avoid having two big complicated taxes. That I could see.

The problem is that the taxes are always adjusted upward. Taxes always increase. Liberals always spend more than they have. Then taxes increase again. Congress NEVER does its job. They always spend. Taxes always go up. Politicians always spend more. Taxes always go up more. Same old singsong.

major bean wrote: The problem is that the taxes are always adjusted upward. Taxes always increase. Liberals always spend more than they have. Then taxes increase again. Congress NEVER does its job. They always spend. Taxes always go up. Politicians always spend more. Taxes always go up more. Same old singsong.

Then how do you explain the tax cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and Obama? Taxes do not always go up, but government spending seems to which wi why we have this crisis.

Then taxes today are lower than in, say, 1954?
Whenever a president postpones a tax increase he sells it as a tax cut. But eventually.........
(It's all semantics.)

Much lower. In 1954, earnings of $325,000 and above were taxed at 72% and earnings of $700,000 and up were taxed at 90%. (Those numbers are adjusted for inflation - the 72% bracket actually started at $44,000)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

(Edited to add link)

major bean wrote: Then taxes today are lower than in, say, 1954?
Whenever a president postpones a tax increase he sells it as a tax cut. But eventually.........
(It's all semantics.)

Like Bush selling a "tax-cut that will expire in 8 years" as a tax-increase when it expires? Yes, I've heard of that...

It's kind of like when corn is "4 for $1.00...until next Thursday"... And then on Thursday, it goes back to its regular price of 40-cents each... Wow! Is than an increase?...or is it just the end of the sale-price?