In the 1860's the United States of America wrestled with the moral issue of slavery and, following the deaths of almost three-quarters of a million Americans, it was decided that slavery was, in fact, immoral. That is, legally appropriating the work product (in part or in whole), of one person another person or entity, was immoral. An idea originally proposed as self-evident in the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal"). To implement this idea (a relatively new idea at the time after at least 10,000 years of slavery being moral and a regular part of virtually all economic systems) the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed and ratified (to thwart the efforts of the "deep state" as then constituted). Only 50 years later -- in a gross departure from the Constitution as ratified in 1791 and specifically abrogating in principle the three most recently amendments, the 16th Amendments was passed and virtually every one became a slave to Uncle Sam. There are lots of reasons to eliminate the income tax (see for example the books written by Neil Boortz promoting the FairTax) but the greatest reason is it is immoral and therefore inconsistent with the, the last, greatest experiment and hope for human civilization: America. As so much of the progressive agenda promulgated in the last Century of so, the IRS should be eliminated, the 16th Amendment repealed and the income tax thrown upon the scrap heap of history.

Why make something easy and simple, when you can make it difficult and complicated? Isn't that the lawerly way? Why write it out in one easy to read page when you can write a 50 pager with 27 footnotes and 12 cross-references, that's so obtuse that only a lawyer from the depths of New York's Lawyer row's assistant research associate can understand it, and then, only because he was the one who drew it up.

;^)

Well, to be clear, I was being sarcastic :-) I think it would be just fine to have that constitutionally limited small government.

The minimal consumption tax on non-essential goods will cover all the expenses of a constitutionally limited small government. And that doesn't include any federal transfer payments, health insurance, etc.

Lots of simple solutions: a flat tax (it worked for the Russians), the Fair Tax (which really makes it possible to consider abolishing the 16th amendment to the Constitution), reverting to a tariff and fee for services economy.

An Economist I am NOT. I have always thought a better way of taxation might just be a tax on money only when you spend it. Some things would have to be tax free but if you make $1,000 per week and only spend $500 you would have $500 to save or deposit in a 401K or some other investment. Let the Feds and states decide who gets what portion of the sales tax but let us keep our full earnings tax free until we spend it.

But then who would pay the salaries of the Supreme Court Justices? And that's just a start....

According to the Constitution, The Federal government is supposed to be funded by the state and not the people. SOLUTION->

We repeal the 16th amendment eliminate all taxation except A flat excise tax on consumption only. No need for IRS. The money goes to the State not the Federal government and is distributed from the bottom up apportioned by zip of the person who paid the tax.
I call this the Fairest Tax. The fair tax does not go far enough as it still sends the money of the people to the federal government.
Oh and to stop corruption eliminate power. Forbid all campaigning. Have 3 .publicly funded debates and that's it. No campaign , no bribery of campaign financing. Candidates might actually be elected on the issues and their qualifications and not just based on what demonization and propaganda/advertising influence people to think. .www.TheSocietyProject.org

"I recognize your argument as valid, but since the feds ignore the parts of the constitution that restricts their powers when it is to their advantage, I am ignoring the restriction"

Civil disobedience may be the only way we take our country back. +1 !!

They have done it in the past when the 16th was challenged.
While I agree that the unethical glory seeking looters who sit on the court should never have been allowed to take the power of review at all, and they should relinquish that power to the states and the people where it belongs, you can be certain that they won't give it back without a revolution, and there is no one in state government with the courage to oppose federal power (on threat of being murdered/assassinated.) Only incorruptible men could wield such power, and there are no such men.
I recognize your argument as valid, but since the feds ignore the parts of the constitution that restricts their powers when it is to their advantage, I am ignoring the restriction in order to reverse an amendment that violates the spirit (and the letter) of the constitution in this instance. I agree that another amendment repealing the 16th is proper, but a revolution is more likely.

Again, you are attributing to the Supreme Court a power which it expressly is forbidden. The Constitutional Amendment process is not subject to Judicial Review and that is a principle stated in the Constitution itself. I understand you don't like the Amendment, but the proper way to get rid of it is to pass another Amendment nullifying it. There is no other Constitutional remedy and that is by design.

The income tax violates the uniformity of taxation clause imo. The court did already rule on that issue and it ruled incorrectly. They also ruled correctly that it was not an extension of the powers already in the constitution. The court should correct its error and declare the amendment in violation of the original intent of the constitution, and that it violates the 13th amendment as well. The supreme court is just as corrupt as the rest of the federal government and deserves the same treatment by the people.

I only bring up Bllomberg to show the ridiculousness which is the Left.

As to your second point, while I agree with the sentiment, the Supreme Court can not overrule a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court's baseline is the Constitution and Amendments become part of that baseline regardless of Judicial Review and for good reason. That the personal income tax is a bad idea is not of dispute in my mind, however, as it has a chilling effect on all kinds of freedoms, notably speech and free enterprise.

As for the articles from Bloomberg. Puke!
The IRS doesn't need any thing new.
It needs to be completely disbanded by a supreme court that does the job it claims is its duty: to expose the 16th amendment as the unconstitutional disgrace that it has always been and to declare it null and void.

You are absolutely right about the results, blarman.
Since government never knows how anything works (as it never does any productive work), it's foolish to ever feel that government could possibly translate understanding of any system to a computer program.
To go even further, it is apparent that the stated goals of government bear no resemblance to the actual goals. What is a failure of the stated goals may be a success if measured by the hidden agenda.