You are elected POTUS - What is Your Tax Plan?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Income tax
$0 - 28,282........00%
$28,283 - 57,164.......08%
$57,165 - 85,746.......10%
$85,747 - 114,328.......25%
$114,329 - 142,911......29%
$142,912 - 171,493......32.5%
$171,494 - 200,075......36%
$200,076 - 228,657......40%
$228,658 - 257,239......43%
$257,240 - 285,822......46%
$285,823 - 314,404......49%
$314,405 - 371,568......52%
$371,569 - 457,315......55%
$457,316 - 543,061......58%
$543,062 - 628,808......61%
$628,809 - 714,555......63%
$714,556 - 857,466......66%
$857,467 - 1,000,377.......69%
$1,000,378 - 1,143,288....72%
$1,143,289 - 1,286,199....75%
$1,286,200 - 1,429,110....83.5%
$1,429,111 - 2,143,665....89%
$2,143,666 - 2,858,220....92%
$2,858,221+..................95%

a 95% top bracket? I know you're the leading person on this forum on labor issues, but 95% top bracket is way over the top and would absolutely murder the economy.

It didnt murder the economy when it actually existed in the 1940's and 1950's. 

In the 40's and 50's we were the only major economy to have come out of the war with our infrastructure largely intact and our businesses were far less subject to foreign imports of high value products.

Also as pointed out by others, tax deductions meant practically no one paid those absurdly high rates, but I don't want the government micromanaging the economy via tax incentives.
Anyway as for what I would do, in that other thread my first four points were tax policy:

1. Simplify the personal income tax system by eliminating most if not all deductions, in exchange for lowering  the rates. (EITC would be kept. Mortgage deduction would be kept but capped.)
2. Replace out current corporate income tax system with one that taxes gross income on domestic sales, with some stringent provisions to avoid companies being able to shop for the best nation to assign a sale to for tax purposes.
3. Legalize marijuana, opioids, and coca, subject to retaining prohibitions on sales to minors and implementing a reasonable tax regime for those products.
4. Implement a carbon tax.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Income tax
$0 - 28,282........00%
$28,283 - 57,164.......08%
$57,165 - 85,746.......10%
$85,747 - 114,328.......25%
$114,329 - 142,911......29%
$142,912 - 171,493......32.5%
$171,494 - 200,075......36%
$200,076 - 228,657......40%
$228,658 - 257,239......43%
$257,240 - 285,822......46%
$285,823 - 314,404......49%
$314,405 - 371,568......52%
$371,569 - 457,315......55%
$457,316 - 543,061......58%
$543,062 - 628,808......61%
$628,809 - 714,555......63%
$714,556 - 857,466......66%
$857,467 - 1,000,377.......69%
$1,000,378 - 1,143,288....72%
$1,143,289 - 1,286,199....75%
$1,286,200 - 1,429,110....83.5%
$1,429,111 - 2,143,665....89%
$2,143,666 - 2,858,220....92%
$2,858,221+..................95%

a 95% top bracket? I know you're the leading person on this forum on labor issues, but 95% top bracket is way over the top and would absolutely murder the economy.

It didnt murder the economy when it actually existed in the 1940's and 1950's. 

In terms of income tax a 95% tax bracket brings in the same amount of revenue as the 40% tax bracket even at its highest point. I'm not quite sure how that's possible, but I think I see a lining there of why, more breaks in the tax code then than there are now, but maybe I'm wrong. Of course, this was before Business taxes and fees had any real effect on revenue, as well taxes involving social services.





Although you already said this, I would like to bring these graphs from Business Insider nevertheless.

The economy during that period had some of the greatest wage and job growth for the middle class in US history.  Yes, there were a lot more deductions pre-1986, so very few people actually paid a 95% tax rate.

When does the necessary bombing of China, Europe and most of the developing world back to the stone ages to create the same playing field as existed in the post war world so as to facilitate that, happen?

In terms of income tax a 95% tax bracket brings in the same amount of revenue as the 40% tax bracket even at its highest point. I'm not quite sure how that's possible, but I think I see a lining there of why, more breaks in the tax code then than there are now, but maybe I'm wrong. Of course, this was before Business taxes and fees had any real effect on revenue, as well taxes involving social services.

Yes, but also you have the laffer curve coming into play at some point even if one thinks Laffer himself is wrong about which side of the curve we are on. Certainly 60% and above is beyond that point, at which one is just purposely butchering job creators and investment for no other reason then spite. His plan might seem pro-labor on the surface, but it is hardly so because the interests of the workers ( having a job to begin with) is being sacrificed to hit the filthy rich. Not to mention that billions of dollars would be wasted on compliance costs with such a complex code that could otherwise be used to expand and hire more workers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

[Mr.Phips]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

[Person Man]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

But isn't it true that Mitt Romney's "47%" are the people who already have negative tax rates? I don't know how keeping negative tax rates for the bottom half and cutting by almost half the taxes of the top half will not totally ruin revenues, even if you eliminate all the revenues and every dollar saved from the feds is wisely reinvested.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1. Make all rates from the Bush tax cuts permanent
2. Repeal the Death/Estate Tax
3. Reduce tax loopholes for those making over $250,000/year
4. Reduce corporate tax rates to flat 15%
5. Institute a new bank tax (similar to those that have been proposed)
6. Institute new, reduced tax rates for ten years on all incomes (similar to Bush tax rates, but lower)

This is just a start, so I might add a little later

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

But isn't it true that Mitt Romney's "47%" are the people who already have negative tax rates? I don't know how keeping negative tax rates for the bottom half and cutting by almost half the taxes of the top half will not totally ruin revenues, even if you eliminate all the revenues and every dollar saved from the feds is wisely reinvested.

I don't recall stating my top tax rate (I have in the past, but that was many months ago). Do you presume to state that you have attained the ability to read my mind?

I know see that both you and Mr. Phips misread my corporate tax plan and then superimposed those rates (which are a range for a single rate, not a dual set of tax brackets if you read it carefully) onto my personal income tax plan. Once again in the words of the esteemed Mittens, "That's Not My Plan".

[greenforest32]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

But isn't it true that Mitt Romney's "47%" are the people who already have negative tax rates? I don't know how keeping negative tax rates for the bottom half and cutting by almost half the taxes of the top half will not totally ruin revenues, even if you eliminate all the revenues and every dollar saved from the feds is wisely reinvested.

This 47% thing ignores federal payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are essentially income taxes levied only on wages and these payroll taxes have no exemptions: there is no standard deduction or personal exemption for them like there is on the federal income tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/payroll-tax-returns-anyone.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Person Man]

What about this income tax schedule:
  
                                      adjusted each year (but based on last years *COLA)
 income grade                                                                       for all filers last year
Super Ultra High (99.99<)                                     49.9%            1.0x10^7
Ultra High (99.75<)                                              47%            1.5x10^6
 Very High (98.75-99.75)                                      41%            450000
        High  (95-98.75)                                          35%            250000
 Mass Upper Quintile (MEQ)(80-95)                        29%            100000
 Middle Upper (60-80)                                          24%              60000
 Middle (40-60)                                                   18%               33000
 Lower Middle (20-40)                                          12%              16500
   Lower     <20                                                  6%

It seems slightly a bit too left for me in retrospect but still pretty reasonable...just ambitious.
 

[Mr.Phips]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

But isn't it true that Mitt Romney's "47%" are the people who already have negative tax rates? I don't know how keeping negative tax rates for the bottom half and cutting by almost half the taxes of the top half will not totally ruin revenues, even if you eliminate all the revenues and every dollar saved from the feds is wisely reinvested.

This 47% thing ignores federal payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are essentially income taxes levied only on wages and these payroll taxes have no exemptions: there is no standard deduction or personal exemption for them like there is on the federal income tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/payroll-tax-returns-anyone.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 47% rant also ignores sales taxes, whom the poor and middle class almost certainly pay a much higher percentage of their income than the wealthiest 1%.

[Person Man]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

But isn't it true that Mitt Romney's "47%" are the people who already have negative tax rates? I don't know how keeping negative tax rates for the bottom half and cutting by almost half the taxes of the top half will not totally ruin revenues, even if you eliminate all the revenues and every dollar saved from the feds is wisely reinvested.

This 47% thing ignores federal payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are essentially income taxes levied only on wages and these payroll taxes have no exemptions: there is no standard deduction or personal exemption for them like there is on the federal income tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/payroll-tax-returns-anyone.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 47% rant also ignores sales taxes, whom the poor and middle class almost certainly pay a much higher percentage of their income than the wealthiest 1%.

Doesn't EITC effectively refund payroll taxes? Though sales and values-added type taxes seem to be a way to raise  tax rates  on the poor, struggling and modest quintiles.

[Mr.Phips]

We need to move more towards simplicity and away from complexity. So much about our economy and society is moving in the opposite direction, the last thing the gov't should do is contribute to the problem. With a simpler code, you could get rid of IRS and replace it with more restrain agency that focuses primarily on going after a smaller number of tax evaders, which would be easier to catch and then prosecute as a result. Compliance would increase and there would be less gray area for "tax avoidance" and sheltering to occur.

As for the specifics my preferred plan going back several years centers around two or three rates with only two or three deductions (home mortage limited to first home, capped charitable giving and maybe one to incentivize energy efficiency), EITC and a health insurance tax credit; a corporate tax rate that is somewhere between 15% and 25% with few deductions (maybe one for energy efficiency and research related activities); and tax free saving and investing for middle and working class people.

I'm assuming that you would substantially increase the standard deduction and or personal exemptions if you are going to have only two or three rates.  Having a bottom rate of 15% and no deductions would be a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Perhaps I should go the Mittens route, "That's not my plan".

I have been leaning towards three rates lately as opposed to two. I left some details out out of the plan for purposes of concission and had typed up more specific posts only to just erase them in this thread over the previous few days.

I am certainly game for exempting the first $40,000 to $50,000 so as to untax income for living expenses. Combined with the EITC, most would have negative tax rates.

But isn't it true that Mitt Romney's "47%" are the people who already have negative tax rates? I don't know how keeping negative tax rates for the bottom half and cutting by almost half the taxes of the top half will not totally ruin revenues, even if you eliminate all the revenues and every dollar saved from the feds is wisely reinvested.

This 47% thing ignores federal payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are essentially income taxes levied only on wages and these payroll taxes have no exemptions: there is no standard deduction or personal exemption for them like there is on the federal income tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/payroll-tax-returns-anyone.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 47% rant also ignores sales taxes, whom the poor and middle class almost certainly pay a much higher percentage of their income than the wealthiest 1%.

Doesn't EITC effectively refund payroll taxes? Though sales and values-added type taxes seem to be a way to raise  tax rates  on the poor, struggling and modest quintiles.

The EITC refunds a piece of the payroll tax for the poorest workers.  For example, someone making $16,000 a year with one child, would get a credit of about $700 when they paid about $950 in Social Security taxes.

[Enderman]

Remove ALL taxes and make a solid, flat, 23% tax on all things bought... (think of it... no death taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, hospital taxes, taxes to tax type of taxes, voting taxes, energy taxes, light taxes... just one 23% flat tax... that is my tax plan...

[barfbag]

Millionaires 28%
<$250,000 23.5%
<$97,000   19.5%
most people 15%

College students and those in poverty should get their money returned when they file their taxes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The US does have a tax system that is too complex... I find double-income-taxation just soooo inefficient.

I know what my preference would be for states... but I'd get slaughtered by the true-leftists

[jaichind]

If I were POTUS then I would go for something like Cain's 999 plan.
If I were emperor or some sort, I would focus less on exact tax structure but push for a political system where a persons vote is linked to the amount of taxes he/she paid.  Something like you get 1 vote in all elections if you pay $5000 or less in federal taxes, $5K-$10K will get you 2 votes and so on with some sort of cap, perhaps 20 votes a person.  Or I can use a Logarithmic function on the federal taxes you pay and derive your vote.  Same basic affect.  This way a low income majority can raise taxes on the rich only by having to face a rich majority of votes in the next election and vice versa.  This is how corporations operate, one dollar one vote. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Wha?...

Were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a child?

[Person Man]

Wha?...

Were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a child?

Exactly. I don't think he even understands what a government is for. The way he would structure it, we might as well not have a government at all.

[King]

There's a ton of ways to skin a cat on the personal side.  My concern would be with business tax.

Employment and income always lags behind GDP growth.  A huge reason for this is stagnant capital.  Too many people like to sit on their money, especially when they get it in their heads that we are headed for uncertain economic times.  My tax plan would be fairly high, but flat corporate and capital gains tax rates.  Then, to offset these high flat rates, there would be offered a laundry list of tax credits to encourage the spending of capital on new hirings, expansion and reinvestment. 

Our government needs to find a way to continually punish businesses for pulling out (causing recessions) and reward them for staying in.

[barfbag]

income < $15,000   10%
income < $25,000   15%
income < $85,000   25%
income > $85,000   28.75%

Repeal the death tax.
Repeal car taxes.
Repeal marriage tax for couples making less than $400,000.
Repeal tax breaks for those making over $400,000.
No national sales tax.
No tax increases for government services.
Reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Double taxation on stock dividends is unconstitutional.
Keep spending under control in order to avoid higher taxes.
Tax increases hurts job creation by taking money away from job creators.



With all of the tax breaks, tax credits, and loopholes, it's not like people can't figure out how to avoid paying taxes anyway. Lower income taxes help the average American and it's important not to let our brackets increase. When people have more money to put into the economy, everyone benefits. Tax breaks should be removed for top income earners. Spending must decline in order to keep within the budget. The car tax and death tax should be eliminated all together. Married couples making less than $400,000 shouldn't have to pay a marriage penalty tax. Taxes should also be lowered on dividends and capital gains. Double taxation on stock dividends is unconstitutional. If we get rid of earmarks and pork, then these tax brackets should spur the economy enough so that more people are paying taxes and we'll be able to pay off deficits at the same time as providing services.
 
I have a thread on this in the political debate section. Income taxes don't need to change too much if we repeal some taxes we have.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

A 9.75 percent flat national sales tax. Exemptions are for food, clothing, essential communications tech, medical needs, and housing.

Essential communications tech is specified as tablets, net books, laptops, cell phones, home computers.
Hidden taxes on cell plans are to be ended.

A constitutional amendment to repeal the Federal Income Tax and disband the IRS

Taxes on internet purchases are also banned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A 9.75 percent flat national sales tax. Exemptions are for food, clothing, essential communications tech, medical needs, and housing.

Essential communications tech is specified as tablets, net books, laptops, cell phones, home computers.
Hidden taxes on cell plans are to be ended.

A constitutional amendment to repeal the Federal Income Tax and disband the IRS

Taxes on internet purchases are also banned.

So what all are you gonna cut in spending?  Even after eliminating all discretionary spending, including the entire Department of Defense, there wouldn't be enough revenue in what you propose the tax base be to pay for what's left.  Assuming you're defining sales tax in the usual fashion, your proposed tax is less than one-third of the level of the so-called Fair-Tax proposal, and you're proposing a whole raft of exemptions to the tax. Even assuming every component of the GDP were subject to your tax rate, which your proposal explicitly rejects, you're not raising enough revenue to pay even two-thirds of current mandatory spending.

[Darth Plagueis]

1.Cut Taxes across the board to.

3%   $0 – $10,000
7%   $10,000 - $50,000
9%   $50,000 - $100,000
12%   $100,000 - $400,000
15%   $400,000 - 1,000,000
19%  over $1,000,000

19% will be highest bracket.
2.Abolish the Death tax.
3.Close all loopholes vigorously.
4.Reform Charity tax.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

A 9.75 percent flat national sales tax. Exemptions are for food, clothing, essential communications tech, medical needs, and housing.

Essential communications tech is specified as tablets, net books, laptops, cell phones, home computers.
Hidden taxes on cell plans are to be ended.

A constitutional amendment to repeal the Federal Income Tax and disband the IRS

Taxes on internet purchases are also banned.

So what all are you gonna cut in spending?  Even after eliminating all discretionary spending, including the entire Department of Defense, there wouldn't be enough revenue in what you propose the tax base be to pay for what's left.  Assuming you're defining sales tax in the usual fashion, your proposed tax is less than one-third of the level of the so-called Fair-Tax proposal, and you're proposing a whole raft of exemptions to the tax. Even assuming every component of the GDP were subject to your tax rate, which your proposal explicitly rejects, you're not raising enough revenue to pay even two-thirds of current mandatory spending.

Not even current mandatory spending is safe from my blowtorch.