The 'Fair Tax'

American Chronicle ^ | April 17, 2006 | Congressman John Linder

[b2stealth]

Just make sure the income tax is no more..

[GOP_Party_Animal]

If you want to reduce it ... support the Fairtax to make it visible, and then you might be able to convince people to "... lower it as the government gets cut up and parted out".

Amen to that. As an employer, I'm tired of sneaking dollars out of my employee's paychecks at the behest of the Federal Government. I hate being a party to this "invisible thievery".

[Congressman Billybob]

I have long been an advocate of abolishing the IRS. The question was what to replace it with. I am coming around to the view that the Fair Tax is a better replacement than the Flat Tax.

The overriding question is, how to approach this result? I suggest that all in Congress who consider the 100,000+ pages of the IRS Code and regulations an abomination, should join in putting a "sunset provision" in the IRS Code, meaning that it will expire in a set time, perhaps three years.

That initial act will light a fire under Congress to agree on what will replace the IRS. Congress will have that three years to thrash out the details of the Fair Tax, and pass it.

The advantage of this approach is that more in Congress know that the IRS MUST be abolished, then are currently in agreement as to what should replace it. Therefore, the "sunset provision" is more likely as the first step, and should be taken NOW.

P.S. I have an early primary for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina, 2 May, less than a month away. Please visit my website in the tagline, and help however you can.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Vote for Garland Hogshed!"

[Filo]

Do you spend every penny of your income on goods?

No, I spend nearly 60% of it on various taxes and other frauds perpetrated by the government.

Since I spend much less than 10% of my income on goods, then that 23% would be equivalent to less than a 2.3% income tax, not 23%.

I'm not sure I agree with your math, but I'm not sure what would and would not be taxed. For instance, if I buy my $1,000,000 3 bedroom "mansion" here in sunny Kalifornia will I actually pay $1.3MM? If I buy a "used" home then it's tax exempt, but a new home is taxed at "23%" (really 30%?)

I've thought about it but need to do more research. My gut, however, tells me that 15% is more than enough.

It also tells me that the congress should have to put any increase in this tax to a vote approved by a supermajority of American voters.

[upchuck]

If you live in the Southeast and want to learn more about the Fair Tax, plan on attending the rally in Atlanta in May.

[pigdog]

"If you actually think you will spend more on taxes with the fair tax, you are completely ignorant. "

A very astute - and correct - observation. Many don't stop to think but merely jerk their knees ... (and flap their gums).

[Logical me]

The fairtax researcher who came up with that number did so by including taxes paid by the employees. Yes if you take all those taxes out, there might be 23% worth. But are employees going to take a pay cut? Are owners going to want to make less? No. Taking out income taxes paid directly by the employee, there is only about 7-8% hidden taxes.

You are absolutely right. Nothing fair about the Fair Tax. The more ways we allow the Federal Government to dip in our pockets the worse it gets. They get enough with all the special taxes such as booze, tobacco, gasoline, etc. If you think that these taxes will no longer exist, think again, fair tax or not.

[SailormanCGA72]

The income tax amendment would have to be repealed first or we would be a victim of the IRS again. In Britain they did not eliminate their income tax before going to the Value Added Tax. Now they have both.

[Osage Orange]

23% is way, way too high

I pay WAY, WAY, WAY, more than that RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pigdog]

The FairTax bill (HR25) eliminates that (and several other taxes including payroll taxes), eliminates the IRS, requires the income tax records be destroyed, and calls for repeal of the 16th amendment.

It is a tax bill, not a spending bill or an amendment repeal bill but those are in the pipeline, too.

[pigdog]

And, under the presen system (or any income-based system) you do so at your own expense.

With the FairTax if you collect and forward taxes (and not all businesses do) you are paid to do so - no unfunded mandaate.

[Always Right]

The current tax industry and its benefactors are far too entrenched and powerful to allow such sweeping change.

I disagree. The reform just has to be better thought out. Perhaps a 8-10% sales tax on goods but excluding food and housing. And combine that with a reduced income tax structure that eliminates taxes on those earning under $50K, and a flat 25% rate above that with no deductions. That would be a greatly simplified tax system that would make our exports more competitive and greatly simplify our current mess. None of the prebate nonsense. None of the 30% rates which would be a huge double tax on people with savings and a huge hit to the new housing industry.

[LambSlave]

No, I spend nearly 60% of it on various taxes and other frauds perpetrated by the government.

I'm only up to just over 50%... For instance, if I buy my $1,000,000 3 bedroom "mansion" here in sunny Kalifornia will I actually pay $1.3MM? If I buy a "used" home then it's tax exempt, but a new home is taxed at "23%" (really 30%?)

This is my interpretation... I see many flaws in the current bill, like the prebate (which could easily be fiddled with to buy votes just like the current system) and the tax on "services" (needs to be cut out, too many problems raised by it). I'd prefer a head tax ($10,000 for each citizen), that is the only "fair tax", other than a direct tax on services... but the "Fair Tax Act" is the best that is out there, and with a little work it could be not only better than what we have, but as close to a fair tax as we could hope for.

[Filo]

I pay WAY, WAY, WAY, more than that RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me too, but that doesn't make it right.

Think about it. If the government is suddenly getting more money from those who are currently living tax free, why should the rest of us continue to shoulder the same tax burden?

Until someone does the math to prove me wrong I'll stand by my belief that 15% is a good start but is still way too much for the government to steal.

[Congressman Billybob]

Excellent point you make. The Kings of England actually experimented with ways to get the taxes up front from transactions, so the payments weren't so obvious when the tax bite came once a year. In a non-cash, non-automated economy, there was no way to make "withholding" work.

Making taxes visible will generate a tidal wave of calls to reduce the total tax burden. This is one of the fringe benefits of the Fair Tax.

Did you know that some of the Framers wrote that they "expected a new American Revolution" if the tax rate ever climbed to 10%? Today, the sheeple are passively paying a total tax burden -- local, state and national -- of about 43%. But right now, much of those taxes are hidden in all the goods and services we buy. They are not visible.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

You make my point precisely. There MUST be a "sunset provision" inserted in the IRS Code so it will die on a date certain, BEFORE Congress attempts to replace it. Then we will not have the situation as in Europe where the Value Added Tax (a complex form of a sales tax) was imposed on top of the existing income taxes.

John / Billybob

[Realism]

Well... I'm still waiting. When are these Congress critters gonna git'er done.

[liberty_lvr]

FWIW, I hope you're right. Unfortunately, given the current pathetic performance of Congress (well, the Senate anyway) I just can't see such an emotional issue being taken seriously by lawmakers. There's just too much opportunity to politicize, criticize, and water down the necessary legislation.

What really ticks me off, though, is that tax reform was one of the primary planks in the President's campaign platform in 2004. But the donks have pretty effectively neutered GWB on this point with their ridiculous stall tactics on every other piece of meaningful legislation.

I just don't see major reform without a fight, and right now there are more important battles (like national survival) occupying the President's and the majority party's time.

[kpp_kpp]

"I'm completely baffled at the lack of comprehension and understanding of 'Fair Tax' on the part of some freepers."

...

after reading your post...: I'm completely baffled at the lack of comprehension and understanding of 'Fair Tax' on the part of some freepers.

[RipSawyer]

I'd prefer a head tax ($10,000 for each citizen),

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So you would prefer that the lower income family of four trying to make it on a gross income of $40,000. should pay their entire gross income in taxes? Am I following you?