Washington ? What would happen if Congress repealed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution? That is the amendment that created the income tax, and the question is not what would replace that tax, but what kinds of reactions would ensue if it were repealed?

Because no alternative tax, such as a national sales tax, would be in place, how would the federal government raise revenue? Certainly, there are other taxes. There are federal taxes on gasoline and airline tickets and a variety of other taxable instruments. However, none of them — with the possible exception of the gasoline tax (see below) — would be positioned to make up the shortfall created by the loss of income tax revenue.

So what would the government do? When the nation was on the gold standard, our money was backed by gold in Fort Knox. So issuing more money in the absence of more gold was theoretically not possible. But the nation has been effectively off the gold standard since the early part of the 20th century, and President Richard Nixon, simply trying to catch the nation up with the times, officially took the nation off that antiquated standard in the 1970s.

In the modern world, a nation’s worth is established by its gross domestic product (GDP), the total of goods and services produced by its people. It is this fact that has allowed nations to print money without creating hyper-inflation. Conversely, various neighbors to the south, such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, have showed what happens when a nation outpaces its economic growth by the over-printing of its currency. Inflation soars, and their currencies are devalued on the world markets.

Just the opposite is true when a prosperous nation like the United States remains responsibly within its economic bounds. This is why the United States can print money and borrow money in seemingly vast amounts while keeping inflation in check.

So what would happen if the income tax were ended? The nation would be forced to print more money. This, in turn, would increase inflation, and that increase would be the real tax. For decades, politicians have said it is so: inflation is the invisible tax. But inflation in the absence of an income tax would be viewed as a benign and passive tax as long as money printing was kept under control.

What restraints would there be on Congress to keep money printing under control? The same constraints that exist today. Political pressure forces our legislators to keep spending in line, and federal spending drives federal taxing — or money printing. The world markets would value our currency, and inflation would measure the impact of congressional money printing. As the currency declined and inflation rose, budget cutting would be the order of the day, and as the opposite scenario played out, budget increases would be in order.

This leaves the question of progressiveness. Inflation affects everybody, rich and poor, alike, and absent an income tax, what would prevent more and more wealth from being controlled by fewer and fewer people? First, the income tax purports to be progressive, but reality says otherwise. Middle-income taxpayers actually end up paying more taxes than many wealthy taxpayers because the system is full of holes, preferences and shelters. A sales tax would be more equitable, and one is already in place: the federal gasoline tax. Naturally, it would have to be raised to about $4 per gallon if it were to replace the income tax. Even so, it would be a better tax.

But the best tax is no tax. The wealth of the nation can sustain the government as long as the government doesn’t take too big a slice by printing too much money.

Prediction: Replacing the federal income tax with money printing is a whimsical thought whose time may never come even though the logic for it is there.