Core Principles
Limited government, individual responsibility, low taxation, and maximum cultural and economic freedom, with only minimal safety nets. The state prioritizes free markets, personal choice, and fiscal restraint. Opt-in social programs and basic public services are acceptable; mandatory redistribution is not.
Economic System
Position
Market-based systems grounded in secure property rights and price signals have produced the largest sustained gains in material living standards, poverty reduction, and innovation in recorded history. Comparative evidence favors these systems over socialist or heavily state-directed alternatives. Historical cases of sustained socialist organization produced chronic shortages, lower productivity, and eventual stagnation or collapse relative to more market-oriented peers. Hybrid systems that preserved significant private ownership and price signals performed better than those that suppressed them.
The state’s economic role should remain limited to core public goods - national defense, domestic public safety, courts, and basic infrastructure - plus a narrow set of evidence-based rules against force, fraud, and severe safety failures. Broad economic management, industrial planning, and taxpayer-funded corporate subsidies are rejected. A modest, slowly adjusted minimum-wage floor can be tolerated as a practical compromise; large or rapid increases are opposed on employment and cost grounds. In an age of advancing automation, a future modest citizen dividend framed as a share of national output remains conceivable, but only if it stays universal, limited, and does not expand mandatory redistribution or undermine work.
Key Elements
- Strong presumption in favor of open markets and private property.
- Comparative superiority of market systems over socialist and heavily state-directed alternatives.
- Government confined to public goods and a narrow regulatory core.
- Rejection of corporate subsidies and most forms of industrial policy.
- Acceptance of a low, inflation-adjusted wage floor; opposition to aggressive minimum-wage policy.
- Conditional openness to a future productivity-linked citizen dividend under strict constraints.
Rationale
Comparative historical evidence shows that societies with greater economic freedom and stronger market institutions have achieved higher long-run growth, faster poverty reduction, and greater consumer abundance than those that suppressed private property and price signals. Targeted safety and anti-fraud rules address real market failures, but regulatory scope expands easily and is prone to capture; therefore the burden of proof remains on further intervention. Corporate subsidies distort capital allocation and reward political connection more reliably than economic value.
On minimum wages the evidence is genuinely contested. Some well-known studies (notably Card & Krueger) find little or no employment loss from moderate increases. Other research and several meta-analyses find negative employment effects, particularly for teenagers and the least skilled, with the size of the effect varying by the magnitude of the increase and local labor-market conditions. The weight of evidence does not support large or rapid increases as costless. A modest floor remains compatible with the overall framework; aggressive minimum-wage policy does not.
Sources
- Our World in Data – Economic Growth
- Fraser Institute – Economic Freedom of the World
- David Neumark – Employment effects of minimum wages
- Card & Krueger – Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania
- Doucouliagos & Stanley - Employment Effect of Minimum Wages
- Wolfson & Belman - 15 Years of Research on U.S. Employment and the Minimum Wage
- Cato Institute – Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget
Simple Explanation
Markets work better than the alternatives for making people richer over time.
Countries and periods that protected private property and let prices and competition guide most decisions produced higher living standards, less extreme poverty, and more innovation than systems that put the state in charge of most production and prices. The big historical examples (Soviet bloc vs. the West, North vs. South Korea, Venezuela’s collapse, China’s growth after it allowed more markets) all point in the same direction.Government still has a limited, important job.
It needs to handle defense, basic law and order, courts, and core infrastructure. It also needs a few clear rules against force, fraud, and serious safety dangers. Beyond that, when government tries to heavily manage the economy or pick winners with subsidies, the results are usually wasteful and favor the politically connected.Corporate subsidies are mostly a bad deal.
Taxpayers currently spend large amounts supporting specific companies. The track record shows these programs rarely deliver the promised broad benefits and often just reward lobbying.Minimum wage is more complicated.
A small, slowly rising floor probably doesn’t do huge damage. Big, rapid jumps are more likely to cost some low-skilled people their jobs or hours and to raise prices. The research is genuinely mixed, so the honest position is caution: modest is tolerable, aggressive is risky.Looking ahead to automation.
If machines eventually produce a lot more wealth with less human labor, a small universal payment tied to overall economic output might make sense someday. But it has to stay small and universal, not turn into another big redistributive welfare system that discourages work.Bottom line in plain English:
Let markets do most of the heavy lifting because they have the best record at creating widespread prosperity. Keep government focused on the basics and on stopping clear harm. Avoid special favors for corporations. Be careful with wage mandates. Stay open to new ideas if technology changes the game, but don’t abandon the principles that produced the gains we already have.
Taxation
Position
The tax system across all levels of government should be low, simple, and limited to funding core public functions.
At the federal level the centerpiece is a flat income tax with a large zero bracket and a short, transparent phase-in. Income below roughly $40,000-$45,000 for single filers and $80,000-$90,000 for joint filers (adjusted over time) faces a zero rate. A brief linear phase-in range then applies so that the rate rises smoothly to the full flat rate of 18-22%. Income above the phase-in range faces that single flat rate. Capital gains and dividends receive preferential but still flat treatment. Most deductions, credits, and special preferences are eliminated to keep the base broad and the rules simple.
Other taxes are kept secondary and constrained:
- A modest, broad-based retail sales tax may serve as a supporting or transitional revenue source. A European-style VAT is rejected in favor of the more transparent sales tax.
- Corporate tax should be low and simple, ideally structured so business income is taxed only once.
- Payroll taxes should decline as Social Security and Medicare are reformed toward more contribution-linked designs and a smaller residual safety net.
- Property taxes remain primarily local, moderate, and tied to core local services (police, fire, roads, basic schools). They are retained but constrained.
- Estate and inheritance taxes are rejected.
- Excise taxes and tariffs are acceptable only when narrow and justified by clear externalities or national-interest policy.
Progressive income-tax rate schedules with rising marginal rates are rejected. The overall tax burden should remain low and matched to essential functions only: national defense, public safety, basic infrastructure, a limited education funding floor, debt service, and a small austere safety net. Temporary transitional measures (a high-end surtax or modest sales tax with an explicit end date) may be used while spending is brought under control.
Rationale
High and complex taxes distort work, saving, investment, and compliance. U.S. federal revenue as a share of the economy has remained relatively stable for decades even when top statutory rates changed dramatically; very high rates do not reliably produce proportionally higher revenue. Flat-tax reforms in other countries have shown that simplification is workable and need not collapse collections.
A large zero bracket increases take-home pay for lower- and middle-income households and supports private spending. A short linear phase-in removes the sharp notch that would otherwise encourage people to hold income just below the threshold. Lower marginal rates above the phase-in reduce disincentives to work and invest. A visible retail sales tax is preferable to a VAT because it is more transparent and less prone to quiet rate increases. Corporate and payroll taxes should not serve as primary redistribution tools. Property tax is retained at the local level because it is a practical and accountable way to fund local order and infrastructure; eliminating it would require less accountable replacements. Estate taxes confiscate property that has already been taxed.
This structure is sustainable only alongside spending restraint. It can support strong defense, core public goods, and a minimal safety floor. It cannot support the present long-term trajectory of major entitlement programs without reforming those programs. The tax rules and the commitment to a smaller federal government are designed to fit together.
Sources
- Federal receipts as percent of GDP - FRED
- Fraser Institute - Lessons from Abroad—Flat Tax in Practice
- Tax Policy Center - How do US taxes compare internationally? and revenue composition data
- Daniel J. Mitchell, CATO Institute - The Global Flat Tax Revolution
- Daniel J. Mitchell, CATO Institute - Flat World, Flat Taxes
- Daniel J. Mitchell, CATO Institute - Tax Competition and Fiscal Reform: Rewarding Pro-Growth Tax Policy
- European Central Bank - Flat Taxes in Central and Eastern Europe
- The Fraser Institute - The Impact and Cost of Taxation in Canada: The Case For Flat Tax Reform
- Tax Foundation - Details and Analysis of a Tax Reform Plan for Growth and Opportunity
Simple Explanation
The main federal tax is simple: most people below a clear income line pay nothing. There is then a short, gradual ramp-up so that crossing the line does not create a sudden penalty. Above that ramp, everyone pays the same flat percentage. Almost all special loopholes are removed. Capital income is taxed at a flat but lower rate so saving and investment are not punished.
Other taxes stay limited. A modest retail sales tax can help raise money without heavily punishing work; a hidden VAT is avoided. Corporate taxes stay low and simple. Payroll taxes shrink as retirement and health programs are reformed. Property taxes are mainly local and kept moderate to pay for local police, fire, and basic services. Inheritance taxes are rejected. Special taxes on specific goods or imports are used only for narrow, clear reasons.
The total tax take is kept low so it only pays for essential jobs - defense, basic order, core infrastructure, a small safety floor, and debt. Because this system collects less than today’s system, government spending must also be reduced over time. That is intentional. A temporary extra tax may be used during the changeover so the budget remains stable while spending is brought down.
The rest is a work-in-progress.
Welfare & Entitlements
Existing welfare and entitlement programs should be aggressively reduced to bare-minimum safety nets. Mandatory redistribution is rejected. An opt-in funding model for remaining social programs is the preferred long-term structure. Benefits, when provided, should cover only basic necessities and should not support comfort or lifestyle expansion. Privatization and structural reform of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and similar programs should be pursued where feasible.
Healthcare
Healthcare should be organized around freedom of choice. Individuals may opt into publicly supported systems or purchase private coverage. Mandates are rejected.
Education
Basic education may be publicly funded, but strong school choice, vouchers, and unrestricted homeschooling rights are essential. Control should rest primarily at the local and state level; the federal role should be limited to narrow protective functions. Curriculum should be restricted to objective knowledge and skills, without ideological programming.
Infrastructure & Regulation
Core infrastructure should be maintained to safe and functional standards with tax revenue. Business regulation is legitimate only for genuine safety, prevention of serious environmental harm, prevention of clear worker exploitation, and protection against anti-consumer practices. Outside these domains, the market should operate freely.
Fiscal Policy
A balanced budget is the proper target. Deficit spending should be minimized. Long-term policy should aim at reducing and eventually eliminating the national debt.
Energy Policy
A gradual shift toward cleaner energy sources is accepted. Nuclear power should be incentivized. Renewables may be encouraged but not mandated. Energy markets should remain competitive and consumer-oriented, without heavy subsidies or coercive industrial policy.
Housing & Urban Policy
Regulation should target clear predatory practices (including large-scale corporate hoarding and abusive landlord behavior). Public housing, where it exists, should be minimal and limited to basic provision. Rent control is rejected. Zoning should be reformed to improve market responsiveness.