My understanding is that the federal government cannot impose a property tax, without just distributing it to the states by population. My reading of the commerce clause is that they couldn't impose a sales tax on in-state commerce. So it's not like these went away after they gained the power to assess an income tax: they were never an option.
As a general rule, you could remove any government agency created with the increase in wartime tax revenue after the war is over. That should get you back to the pre-war tax rate.
I don't want to go down the entire list[1] of agencies, since it would take the thread too far off-topic(even this response is borderline). I should shift more work to the individual states. Also cut the military: They are so disorganized they're the only government branch that can't be audited[2].
> My reading of the commerce clause is that they couldn't impose a sales tax on in-state commerce.
(1) The commerce clause is a grant of power, not a limit. It's indisputable that the commerce clause does not authorize a tax on in-state commerce, but it doesn't prohibit one, either. So we need to look beyond the commerce clause and ask if a federal sales tax is authorized anywhere else.
(2) The dollar value of sales is income, derived from sales. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the authority to "lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states". Therefore, a federal tax on the gross income from sales is authorized by the 16th Amendment.
(3) But, wait, we don't even need the 16th Amendment. There's a special word for a tax on sales of goods -- its called an "excise". And its an express Constitutional power of Congress even before any amendments, in the Tax and Spending Clause, with the restriction that they must be uniform throughout the United States.
As a general rule, you could remove any government agency created with the increase in wartime tax revenue after the war is over. That should get you back to the pre-war tax rate.
Pre war federal spending was ~10% of GDP. Currently we're at about 25%. So you want to cut federal spending by about 60%.
Medicare is about 15% of the fed budget. Social Security is about 25%. That's the 40% you get to keep right there. You think we should cut literally everything else?
Your assessment about what it would take to achieve the cuts you propose is not based in reality.
It may help to think of the suggestion as more a "We never should've passed it in the first place" rather than a suggestion to immediately propose a bill of repeal.
I have some thoughts on how to conduct an orderly shutdown of the programs over, say, 30 years, but they would take the thread too far away from the subject of stock options.
It would be better if the income tax was zero and we had a higher tax on consumption (allow a base deduction for poor people if you want) since what you tax you get less of, and we don't want less investment in human capital or physical capital, but less consumption is okay (though obviously still undesirable).
As for the rest, just cut all subsidies to companies and farms, as a start. Then cut the military down to what is needed to defend the US, not to waste money running an empire.
Our food import rate would climb due to the strength of the dollar. Which is fine for the short term. If bad things happen in 20 years and we can't even grow enough good to feed the country? That seems pretty bad.
Taxes are like wackamole. You can't just limit 1 tiny piece and expect anything to change.
Furthermore you can't just lower the total take unless you want to explain where the cut is coming from.
Less school funding? Less roads? Less police? Less Army? More debt?