USA Wage Tax Proposal

Eliminate Direct Tax on Wages

Wage earnings are subject to both direct and indirect taxes. The IRS classifies the personal income tax on wages as because these taxes cannot be shifted to others, while classifying SSA and FICA taxes as taxes, because these taxes can be shifted to payroll and employment costs.

The Supreme Court in recently reaffirmed the long-standing precedent that classifies Social Security and FICA taxes as indirect taxes. The ability to is an essential feature and a fundamental right!

The Proposal

This proposal seeks to eliminate income taxes on wages and earnings while retaining indirect taxes, such as the Social Security and Federal Insurance Contributions Act, intact and in force.

Eliminate federal individual income tax on wages and salary income.

Reduce or eliminate the filing requirement for many wage-earning households.

Retain payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare.

Simplify tax compliance and reduce time spent on recordkeeping and tax preparation.

Refocus federal revenue collection toward income sources not derived from ordinary wages.

This proposal would eliminate tax filings for 150 million filers, which is the majority of U.S. citizens, while using the income tax as a means to capture the creation wealth with those who make billions. Personal income tax on wages lack the essential feature to the tax. This proposal aim is to reduce the tax burden and administrative burden associated with labor income while preserving a stable, fair, and just federal revenue system.

Modernize Visual


IRS Definition of Direct Taxes

"A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax."

www.IRS.gov / Understanding Taxes

IRS Definition of Indirect Taxes

"A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes."

" An indirect tax is one that can be passed on -or shifted- to another person or group by the person or business that owes it."

www.IRS.gov / Understanding Taxes

American Express Co. v. Michigan, 177 U.S. 404 (1900)

"As the means by which the burdens of taxes may be shifted are as multiform and as various as is the power to contract itself, it follows that the argument relied on, if adopted, would control almost every conceivable form of contract, and render them void if they had the result stated. Thus, the price of all property, the result of all production, the sum of all wages, would be controlled irrevocably by a law levying taxes if such a law forbade a shifting of the burden of the tax and avoided all acts which brought about that result. It cannot be doubted that to adopt by implication the view pressed upon us would be to virtually destroy all freedom of contract, and in its final analyses would deny the existence of all rights of property."

American Express Co. v. Michigan, 177 U.S. 404 (1900)

Moore v. United States (2024)

"Article I of the Constitution affords Congress broad “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. That power includes “‘two great classes of’” taxes—direct taxes and indirect taxes. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 13 (1916). Generally speaking, direct taxes are those taxes imposed on persons or property." ...

By contrast, indirect taxes are the familiar federal taxes imposed on activities or transactions. That category of taxes includes duties, imposts, and excise taxes, as well as income taxes. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Amdt. 16.

Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. 572 (2024)

Calculated with data from:

'Dataset: 'Table 3.1. Government Current Receipts and Expenditures [Billions of dollars].' U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised March 27, 2025. b) Dataset: 'Table 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures [Billions of dollars].' U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised March 27, 2025. c) Dataset: 'Table 3.3. State and Local Government Current Receipts and Expenditures [Billions of dollars].' U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised March 27, 2025. d) Dataset: 'Table 5.11U. Capital Transfers Paid and Received, by Sector and by Type [Millions of Dollars; Quarters Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates].' U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised March 27, 2025."

Bureau of Economic Analysis: National Income

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103

"... it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was-a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

Bureau of Economic Analysis: National Income

Eisner v MaComber (2024)

"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 172-173.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts."

Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. 572 (2024)

"FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment."

"National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee, Docket number 24-621, dated 6/30/26."

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee