Skip to comments.WOODALL INTRODUCES FAIRTAX BILL ON DAY ONE WITH RECORD NUMBER OF ORIGINAL CO-SPONSORS
Posted on 01/06/2011 3:52:22 AM PST by phil_will1
Washington, DCOn Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Congressman Rob Woodall (GA-07) introduced H.R. 25, the FairTax. The FairTax legislation eliminates the current income tax paradigm and replaces it with a system of taxation based on consumption. The bill was introduced on Wednesday with 47 original co-sponsorsthe most original co-sponsors the bill has ever had for its initial introduction.
I committed to the Seventh District of Georgia that my efforts in Congress would focus on reclaiming freedom for the American people. It is for that reason that I am proud to make the FairTaxthe only bill that restores transparency and simplicity to our tax codemy very first action in Congress. I have said since its inception that the FairTax is not a tax bill; it is a freedom bill, Woodall said.
Woodall, who was sworn-in to Congress earlier in the day, played an integral role in crafting the original text of the FairTax as former Congressman John Linder's Chief of Staff when the bill was originally introduced in 1999.
"Our current tax system is a bloated, convoluted mess that gives government power over Americans' pockets. With 47 Members of Congress and counting signing their names to the FairTax, we are closer than ever before to voting on legislation that eliminates the frustrating mess that is the IRS."
Although the FairTax was introduced with 47 original co-sponsors, Woodall anticipates adding many more Members of Congress to the bill. Once the FairTax is introduced with the original co-sponsors, Members are able to sign on to the bill as co-sponsors throughout the 112th Congress.
"The number of signatures on the FairTax this time around is a testament to the will of the people. It is clear that Americans do not want to have their hard-earned money taken away and they want to reclaim the freedom to spend their money how they choose and when they choose.
The list of original co-sponsors is as follows:
1) Tom Price (GA)
2) Brian Bilbray (CA)
3 ) John Carter (TX)
4 ) Michael Conaway (TX)
5 ) John Duncan (TN)
6) Virginia Foxx (NC)
7) Steve King (IA)
8) Michael McCaul (TX)
9) Pete Olson (TX)
10 ) John Sullivan (OK)
11 ) Mac Thornberry (TX)
12) Phil Gingrey (GA)
13) Roscoe Bartlett (MD)
14) Don Young (AK)
15) Ander Crenshaw (FL)
16) Todd Akin (MO)
17) Lynn Westmoreland (GA)
18) Tom Graves (GA)
19) Gus Bilirakis (FL)
20) Ted Poe (TX)
21) Randy Neugebauer (TX)
22) Jeff Miller (FL)
23) Robert Wittman (VA)
24) Jack Kingston (GA)
25) Marlin Stutzman (IN)
26) Jeff Flake (AZ)
27) Billy Long (MO)
28) Cliff Stearns (FL)
29) Tim Walberg (MI)
30) Dennis Ross (FL)
31) Dan Boren (OK)
32) Mo Brooks (AL)
33) Darrell Issa (CA)
34) Richard Nugent (FL)
35) Tim Scott (SC)
36) Blake Farenthold (TX)
37) Jeff Duncan (SC)
38) Rob Bishop (UT)
39) Mike Pence (IN)
40) Sandy Adams (FL)
41) John Mica (FL)
42) Sue Wilkins Myrick (NC)
43) Dan Burton (IN)
44) John Culberson (TX)
45) James Lankford (OK)
46) Mike Pompeo (KS)
47) Gary Miller (CA)
-- Jennifer Drogus Communications Director Congressman-elect Rob Woodall
Seventh District of Georgia 202.225.4272 | firstname.lastname@example.org
In addition to being about freedom, as he stated, the FairTax is also about putting Americans back to work. This ground-breaking piece of legislation would create more good paying jobs here in the U. S. than any other bill before congress.
I suggest a call to his office ......give him an ATTABOY!
Fair tax is not good.
FLAT TAX is equitable.
Fair tax is just that... fair...it would force the underground economy shoppers, illegals, drug dealers to PAY. Plus say good buy to the IRS. Flat tax has its benefits but keeps the power in DC...
Pass an amendment abolishing the income tax first. Then we can talk about Fair Tax.
Which flat tax proposal do you and Jane support? You do know that a flat income tax is a form of taxation and not a specific proposal, right?
Imagine what we would save if we abolished the IRS? But then, no politician could stand for losing all those tax scams and kick backs they get from their lobbyists.
This will never survive in the house or Senate. They still believe that they are in charge of us and we work for them.
“Pass an amendment abolishing the income tax first. Then we can talk about Fair Tax.”
The FairTax bill has a provision which repeals the proposal itself if the 16th amendment is not repealed within 7 years. That makes repeal eminently achievable because once Americans experience the freedom and economic expansion brought about by the FairTax, the political pressure to repeal the 16th will be enormous. Making the repeal of the 16th a condition precedent to implementing the FairTax is a recipe for maintaining the status quo.
However, that was probably your intention.
BTW, you can talk about it or not; it’s a free country. There are million of Americans who understand how destructive and horribly inefficient the current system is and are eager to debate the issue. Even the federal government’s tax payer advocate Nina Olson has just come out in favor of simplification, pointing out that the tax system has almost tripled in number of pages since 2001.
Isn’t it funny how everyone agrees that simplification is badly needed in our tax system, but congress seems incapable of delivering it under the current system?
Good. Talk of true tax reform is helpful.
Ga 7 introducing tax reform and Ga 9 introducing Health Care repeal. I like.
The Fair Tax is the first building block to a VAT!
What? No Paul Ryan?
” Flat tax has its benefits but keeps the power in DC”
it can set limitations and mandates on congress while forcing them into a strict budget. It also will attract businesses to build here because of low taxes and that translates into jobs...
Paul Ryan has his own tax plan. It’s a hybrid of a flat tax plus pretty much what we have now - you have a choice as to which works better for your individual situation.
Yawn - feel good legislation.
Tax COLLECTION is not the problem. Spending is the problem.
Jim Jordan’s name is not on that list though he insists he is a surporter.
my only objection to the fair tax is if properly implemented, it gives the Fed too much money! (23%)
So what is in this Fair Tax Bill designated HR 25? You do a search and it comes up in 2007, 2009, 110th congress etc.
Seems like folks approve of this bill without reading it.. sound familiar?
I’m a “glass is half empty” kind of guy. I think this is a great deal, but they’ll probably end up transferring the IRS employees over the BATFE if it passes.
I will be shocked if it ever gets past the Senate and gets signed by the President.
“Jim Jordans name is not on that list though he insists he is a surporter.”
There are a number of house members who will be signing on in the next few weeks. The goal is to have 100 co-sponsors by the end of the first quarter (in the house). Forty seven is a good start. Most, but not all, of last session’s co-sponsors are on that list of 1st day co-sponsors in this session. There are also a lot of freshmen who will be receptive.
“my only objection to the fair tax is if properly implemented, it gives the Fed too much money! (23%)”
“It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ‘in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #21
The current system enables and facilitates higher taxes on some because of its inherent ability to create a system in which politicians hide the true cost of taxation and mete out tax preferences to political allies.
Fair tax, Flat tax, This tax, That tax. Any system of taxation will require an agency to print forms and instructions, collect the money, and enforce the law. Any talk of eliminating the IRS is juvenile and ill informed.
“So what is in this Fair Tax Bill designated HR 25?”
It’s a tax reform proposal which eliminates income taxes (both individual and state), payroll taxes (both employer and employee), estate and gift taxes - pretty much all current federal taxes with the exception of excises. In their place would be an NRST (National Retail Sales Tax) levied at the point of sale to an end using consumer. It would be levied at a rate of 23 cents per dollar spent. There would also be a rebate to ensure that no one would pay taxes (on a net basis) up to poverty level consumption.
It would provide dramatic economic stimulus and restore the Constitutional rights usurped over the years by the current tax system.
Find out more at www.fairtax.org
“You do a search and it comes up in 2007, 2009, 110th congress etc.”
It has been introduced into every session of congress since 1999 (in the house). There has been a companion senate bill since about 05, I think. This is why getting more 1st day co-sponsors than ever before is a big deal.
“Seems like folks approve of this bill without reading it.. sound familiar?”
We do have a problem with members signing on as co-sponsors but not understanding the bill well enough to defend it or educate their constituents as to its importance. However, in areas where congress members do understand it and its enormous benefits, it has proven to be politically a winner. Rob Woodall won his seat primarily because he convinced the voters that he would be the most effective advocate for the bill in the US house. Every Republican running for that seat (vacated by the retirement of the bill’s previous primary sponsor) ran on the FairTax and tried to convince voters that he would do more to advance the FairTax than the others. Woodall won that debate and therefore he is the one who raised his right hand yesterday.
I do think that the new group of freshmen house members “gets it” more than many of the incumbents. Of course, the current tax system favors incumbents because it facilitates the exchange of tax preferences and earmarks for campaign cash, aided and abetted by an army of well heeled lobbyists. The FairTax would be a critical component of any serious effort to reform that system and return accountability of our elected government back to the people. For that reason, lobbyists hate it and so do many career politicians - on BOTH sides of the aisle.
Seriously? Tax collection is “not a problem”?
I beg to differ. I consider it a HUGE problem when the government has the authority to comb through what was at one time considered private information: my personal finances. It is anathema to liberty to continue to allow this type of government intrusion into our personal lives.
Income tax, flat, round or square BAD!
“Fair tax, Flat tax, This tax, That tax. Any system of taxation will require an agency to print forms and instructions, collect the money, and enforce the law. Any talk of eliminating the IRS is juvenile and ill informed.”
I respectfully but strongly disagree. The current system measures over 70,000 pages as measured by CCH. That was the total at the end of 2009; they don’t have the 2010 tally up yet.
We want to replace it with a system which is currently less than 150 pages. If you accept the number of pages as a reasonable approximation of the complexity of the two systems, that is about a 99.8% simplification. Even if Treasury augments the bill itself with 1,000 pages of amplifying instructions, that is still an enormous decrease in waste and efficiency.
Under a sales tax regimen, huge areas of complexity, such as different depreciation methods, useful lives of assets, depreciation recapture, investment tax credit, earned income credit, etc, etc, etc become obsolete.
However, it gets even better. There are approximately 120 million filers under the current system. Under the FairTax, there would be about 20 million. Of those filers, a very small number of “big box” retailers, car dealers, etc. would comprise a very high percentage of total retail sales. That means that points of sale/enforcement would be dramatically reduced.
There are absolutely enormous efficiencies to be had here. I would suggest that anyone who does not comprehend that has not studied the subject to any significant extent.
My point is that there are several tax collection methods. Flat tax, Fair tax, Income, sales, VAT, direct apportionment, representative apportionment, etc etc etc
The METHOD of tax collection, changing the system, changing HOW taxes are collected .... is not the problem.
The VOLUME of taxes collected is what hurts the economy and the individual tax payer. The volume is driven by spending. That is why it is spending that needs to be fixed first.
I’m going to chalk up my vote for Woodall in the winner column.
First, NO tax on income is equitable. Especially with the uneven playing field we are on.
Second, ANY tax on income is an invitation to the Congress to tweak and fiddle, just as has happened with the current tax code.
Third, taxes on CONSUMPTION are more equitable because they give you (the individual) the option to say NO. You are not obligated to BUY anything.
Fourth, the argument that the FairTax is the first step to a VAT is true to the extent that the sheeple MAY LET IT HAPPEN. IF the American people are as vigilant and demanding as they should be, it will never devolve into a VAT.
The Fair Tax, as embodied in HR25 is an excellent idea, worthy of serious consideration. Please encourage your elected officials, AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, to study it closely.
OH HELL YEAH!
Thank you Sue Myrick and Virginia Fox.
So who would collect all the money from those 20 million filers; the ghost of IRS agents past? I am not saying the Fair Tax is not more efficient than the current system. Almost any system designed by a blind pig would be more efficient than the monstrosity we have now. I AM saying “Any talk of ELIMINATING the IRS is juvenile and ill informed.” Maybe I should replace the word juvenile with knee jerk, but my original sentiment remains.
“So who would collect all the money from those 20 million filers; the ghost of IRS agents past?”
In most cases, the states would collect the NRST on behalf of the federal government and remit the funds to them. In most states, retailers are already filing sales tax returns and adding an NRST would involve adding an additional line to that filing. Both the states and the retailers would be allowed to keep 1/4% to defray their administrative costs. The current system, which imposes a much heavier administrative burden on businesses, has no such provision.
You do understand that under our so-called “voluntary” system of taxation, IRS agents do not collect the taxes, right? Most IRS agents do audits or otherwise pursue those who don’t “voluntarily” pay the proper amount. However, if you ask 3 different IRS agents the same question about tax law, you are quite likely to get 3 different answers. Is it any wonder that we need an army to enforce such an arbitrary and subjective system? Under the FairTax, those complexities simply disappear. I have been through sales tax audits with businesses that employed me, and I can tell you that they are trivial compared to income tax audits.
Perhaps the larger issue, however, is one referenced by a previous poster, which is, what business is it of the federal government to delve into every detail of your personal finances? If you no longer have an intrusive tax system, you no longer need an intrusive agency to enforce it. That is what we mean by eliminating the IRS.
Unfortunately you are incorrect. The cost of income tax is embedded into the cost of the goods and services. That is where the money to pay the tax comes from. So, in the US, typically 20% of the price of something is actually the tax burden of the people making or providing the good or service. The flat tax does not change this. The cost of taxes are still built into the price of the good or service being consumed.
When the good or service is provided via import, a large potion of that 20% leaves the United States and goes back to the country of origin. This gives foriegn competition within the United States a huge advantage over domestic suppliers. If the tax were no longer embedded in the price but added on at the time of sale, then it would not matter if the good or service was imported or not, the 20% would stay in the United States. Imports would lose a large part of their advantage and the US economy would boom. Just look at the current trade deficit. What would it do for tax revenues if 20% of that deficit stayed in the United States as sales tax?
The Fair Tax is the single greatest step the US could take to bolstering our economy and stop the flow of jobs out of the country.
That is a fallacy. The federal government collects roughly 20% of GDP as taxes. That 20% is built into the cost of goods and services. It doesn't matter how you collect it, you are still effectively raising the price of everything by 20% to cover the tax burden. The foriegn import does not have the 20% US tax burden to bear, it takes that 20% as a bonus.
Consider a Ford SUV selling for $20,000. $4,000 of that is going to the government from taxes paid by workers, investors, suppliers, Ford Motor Corp, etc. Meanwhile, on the Honda SUV imported from Japan selling for the same $20,000, most of that $4,000 heads back to Japan. Under the Fair Tax, the Ford would sell for $16,000 and at the time of sale the consumer would pay $4,000 in taxes. To compete, the Honda would also sell for $16,000 and the buyer would pay $4,000 in taxes. Under an income tax system, the government would only collect roughly $5 to $6 thousand dollars for the sale of these two vehicles. Under the fair tax system, the government would collect $8,000. So, under the Fair Tax system, the US consumer would not pay a nickel more in taxes than they already do, however government revenue would increase, lowering our debt. The trade deficit would shrink. Foreign competitors would lose a huge advantage, American labor would become much more cost effective and in general, our economy would boom.
So, in the US, typically 20% of the price of something is actually the tax burden of the people making or providing the good or service.If that was fact (it isn't) how does the 23% Fairtax rate (actually 30% as sales taxes are calculated) replace that, all the other taxes, reduce prices 20% AND fund a refund to every family in America, as they promise?
You can be the first to answer that after 10+ yrs of asking.
Oh I see. By eliminating the IRS you really mean reducing the size of the IRS. I understand eliminate sounds better, and that is important when you are trying to sell a new program, but it is still a misleading use of the language. The IRS is not going away.
“The IRS is not going away.”
Yes, it is. To borrow a phrase from the first President Bush: “watch and learn.”
Above taken directly from the text of
You had the question answered hundreds of times previously Lewis but are too thick sculled to “get it”!
The FairTax base is very much larger than the income tax base Lewis!
If you go back all the way to the beginning of the 20th century, government revenue as a percentage of GDP has ranged from mid 18% range to the high 19% regardless of whether the economy was boom or bust and tax rates were high or low. For general discussion it is just easier to round it off to 20%.
How that 20% is collected has varied. You have excise taxes, income taxes, taxes masquerading as fees, estate taxes, gift taxes, corporate taxes, on and on. The bottom line is that every one of those taxes get embedded in the price of goods and services and are ultimately paid by the consumer. The method of collection can vary across a broad spectrum, but the money that gets paid as taxes comes out of the pocket of the consumer.
So, the Fair Tax, in order to eliminate all the other forms of taxation needs to provide roughly 20% of GDP to the government as revenue to directly replace the current tax system. The perceived tax rate may vary based on any gimmicks involved in the particular system. If you are going to do rebates (a gimmick), then a rate higher than 20% is necessary. However, the net effect will still be 20% if the system is set up to be revenue neutral. Eliminate the rebate, and you don’t need as high a rate. Politicians like the gimmicks to sell a proposal, but in general they do not really effect the burden the system places on the individuals. In the end, taxes are paid by the consumers and they generally balance out based on your level of consumption, regardless of the gimmicks in the system.
The overal benefit of the Fair Tax is that the consumer will end up paying a net 20%. Under the current system, they are paying a net 20% plus another 10 - 18% on imported goods and services.
Implementation of the Fair Tax will not be as easy as some would have it. All of the current inventory, both finished goods and inventory in the production flow have the 20% tax burden embedded in them already. A transitional process will be required to deplete current inventory and move to inventory which does not have an embedded tax content. This will be complicated, but it is doable and the tax bonus from the sale of imported goods and services will be a usefull tool during the transitional period.
There are many more Fair Tax candidates who were elected to office in November than past elections. The growing angst with the federal income tax code and the IRS, particularly as it will be used with unconstitutional Obamacare, is becoming a perfect storm for passage of The Fair Tax.
“Implementation of the Fair Tax will not be as easy as some would have it. All of the current inventory, both finished goods and inventory in the production flow have the 20% tax burden embedded in them already. A transitional process will be required to deplete current inventory and move to inventory which does not have an embedded tax content.”
That is why there is a transitional credit included in the bill for holders of inventory as of the effective date of the FairTax’s implementation. If it were not for that credit, your point would be true.