U.S. Congress - H.R.25 Fair Tax Act
H.R.25 - Fair Tax Act
To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. view all titles (3)
All Bill Titles
- Official: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. as introduced.
- Popular: Fair Tax Act as introduced.
- Short: Fair Tax Act of 2011 as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 61-90 of 163 total comments.
If we switch to a sales tax why would you still be comparing incomes?
“Rich people tend to spend a smaller percentage of their income than poor people, preferring to invest the remainder.”
This is true, but the rich still spend more than the poor, and so they will still pay more in taxes.
The sales tax will also eliminate all the loopholes the rich are using to avoid paying their full share of income taxes. It will also generate tax revenue, from people who currently don’t pay any taxes, like drug dealers & other criminal types.
Spam Comment
That is not true at all, the more money you have the more you spend, your percentage argument don’t cut it. Also there is already a 27 per cent embedded tax in everything you buy now. A 23 per cent tax will simply replace this. And you can always buy used items, cars, houses etc. there is no tax that way at all. Your cost of living will not be taxed either by means of a prebate. I’m not by any means rich but if you understand it it works out better for even us in the 30-40K range workers. I buy used cars, my house was already lived in, NO Tax on either. Anything else would be same price because the fair tax replace an already embedded 27per cent on everything you buy now. I personally would love to get my paycheck without taxes taken out and choose whether I pay more or less taxes with that extra money. Read all the info on it and you will see that it would be better for those with less income as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MnnmIoZYK0
Fair vs Flat tax Video
Question: if the sales tax is going to be administered (and therefore, I would hope primarily recieved) by the states, where do we intend to get money to pay off our deficit and fund our army? This bill gets presented at every new Congress and every time it gets shot down, because it’s unrealistic. It’s essentially nothing by eye candy, empty words so the Republicans can look like they’re supporting the average Joe when in reality they can’t manage a bill that’s actually doable.
Besides, why would people support a sales tax above an income tax? A income tax is more easily controlled. Implementing a sales tax would encourage black market and illegal trade. Every time the taxes jump on cigarettes it’s the Republicans who whine. It’s far, FAR too easy to cheat on such a tax and our state and federal legislature would quickly starve assuming all the countries we’re in debt too don’t make the jump to attack us when we can no longer pay them and no longer have a military.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
While our domestic production taxes exports jobs, the fairtax brings jobs back home. Switching to the fairtax makes American producers more competitive in both domestic and international markets. Funding for government comes from taxing the consumption of domestic and imported products the same. Consumption is funded by the wealth we create.
I generally do not condone the following except in extreme circumstances but government has historically also funded it self by selling T-Bills, instituting temporary or permanent excise taxes, and printing more money.
It is likely that in extreme circumstances government will continue to use the previously mentioned methods in the future, irrespective of if we pass the fairtax or not.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Ah and I forgot to mention that if people recall, the govt did just fine without federal income taxes up until the early 1900s when a constitutional amendment was ratified allowing the collection if federal income tax, before that most revenue from the govt was received in the form of property taxes. Funny thing is, property taxes didn’t go down after that amendment.
Not to mention, the original withholding tax was just supposed to be on the ultra rich, or at least that’s how it was sold to the states & the public. We all see how that worked out.
As it stands now, the tax code can be manipulated to please specific groups or constituents and the same could basically be done with consumption-based taxes. The best solution is repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, going back to an apportioned tax system and having Senators appointed rather than elected. This puts the burden of taxation and the power of taxation with the state governments (it still is halfway in the hands of the people via the House of Representatives).
I find it odd that Ron Paul isn’t a co-sponsor on this bill – If it was “so good” I would think he would have something to say about it. This prompted me to start looking at the other side, since I was entertaining the idea of going to a local meeting.
Check out:
http://mises.org/daily/1814
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/cox4.html
Now this I can get behind:
`(3) construe any ambiguities in this Act in favor of reserving powers to the States respectively, or to the people.
People would have to currently spend less money on state sales taxes than federal income taxes to justify this bill. Otherwise, the burden on lower and middle class consumers would only increase. Also, it is true richer Americans do work for their money and save it responsibly, that doesn’t grow the economy. Lower and middle class Americans grow the economy because they spend their money. The economy doesn’t like savers it like spenders, so we should want to reward and protect those who grow the economy (lower/middle class) and not those who are simply financially responsible.
jbkonkol, I understand your point, but I do not think this bill would create a hardship on the middle and lower class.
With the rebates/prebates built into the bill, each American who normally, now, files taxes, can expect a minimum of $200 a month to come back to them, just by keeping up with their receipts:
‘‘SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATION CREDIT.
4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Every person filing a timely
5 monthly report (with regard to extensions) in compliance
6 with section 501 shall be entitled to a taxpayer adminis7
trative credit equal to the greater of—
8 ‘‘(1) $200, or
9 ‘‘(2) one-quarter of 1 percent of the tax remit10
ted.
(continued)
11 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The credit allowed under this sec12
tion shall not exceed 20 percent of the tax due to be remit13
ted prior to the application of any credit or credits per14
mitted by section 201.
*****************************************************************************
As you had said, “Lower and middle class Americans grow the economy because they spend their money”; this is partially true and partially not. I say that because spending in moderation does grow the economy, but spending in excess will retard the economy by having a new burden created on it: the spender. The purpose of this bill is to invoke savings as stated in Title 2, subsection d, bullet 2.
(continued)
While having everyone save all of their money would surely destroy the economy, saving 10 – 20% can greatly impact the economy in a better way than “spending your way out of debt”. This bill, as it reads to me, would encourage saving money by investing. Regardless if you personally save money in investments, the bank (if you use a bank), would do it for you (which is one way they make profits). Once more liquid capital enters the market, especially with no payroll taxes, businesses would be able to use the excess capital to either: 1.) expand, or 2.) paydown the $1.17 Trillion regulation costs businesses endure (http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371.pdf). The regulation costs don’t even include the taxes they currently pay, which equaled $2.5 Trillion in 2008 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm)
(continued)
If this bill ever were to pass, it would create some hardships such as eliminating the Payroll Tax which helps funds social welfare programs. But then again, when it comes down to it (not to mention the fact the funds are almost completely out of money and full of bonds the government has paid to themself [which is the same as me taking $50 from a rainy day fund and writing an IOU to myself that says I’ll pay myself $50 later]), if I’m paying for someone else to live, I would rather be able to choose who, when, and how much I donate instead of being told to “redistribute the wealth”. After all, it was my money to begin with through a contract/agreement with my employer; not a promise I made to someone else. Then again, that’s just me wishing someone would ask me to pay their retirement instead of creating a law for it.
(continued)
If more Americans had decided to save 10 – 20% every year throughout their life, maybe the trust funds’ reserves wouldn’t be completely exhausted by 2037 (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr10summary.pdf)
(all done)
The bill is revenue neutral,in that tax revenues would remain the same as now. The added benefit is that with corporate taxes eliminated the country would be flooded with investment money from offshore accounts and around the world seeking the higher profit margins and increasing the job market. It is estimated that $14 Trillion would pour in igniting manufacturing and insuring full employment and thus increase revenues even more
The government’s job is never to reward anyone, only to protect everybody.
Forget this BS bill if someone is smart and determined enough to not pay an income or flat tax tax it’s possible.
And they don’t now? so what is the difference?
23% is BS. Several economists have stated that a 10% tax would result in a trillion dollar surplus. Congress wants to put a higher price on it so they have as much money as possible prior to enactment so they can pat themselves on the back. The feds need to stay out of our lives. They can make plenty of money if they were to do their job. That is to protect our borders against not only tresspassing but also unfair commerce entering across our borders. Leave states alone.
jafi6996, definitely agree with you about the federal government staying out of our lives! That’s the dirty little secret of liberty, we’re on our own. Although life was harder 200 years ago, they had freedom out the butt! makes me jealous! I think, if everything was the way it is now, except the states had passed laws which made it that way, then I’d be more understanding of the laws because we’d be sticking to the constitution, even if that meant a 30% state sales tax (although I’d fight like hell to lower it with the state legislature). guess I’m just a strict constructionist though.
Spam Comment
Think about the effect on the unemployment rate. Over 100,000 IRS employees laid off. H & R Block, Jackson-Hewitt, thousands of independent tax professionals…jobs gone, never to come back. The multi-billion tax preparer industry gone. And the Republicans call the Health Care Bill job killing!
blink blink Let’s see, businesses gain an additional $2.5 trillion in year 1 just by not paying taxes this bill hopes to cut. 100,000 employees making $100,000/year = $10billion. So, we have 2.5 trillion versus 10 billion…I think the money would cover the jobs.