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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 163 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    TadsDad 02/09/2011 7:27am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    SignOfTheDollar 05/06/2011 1:59pm

    Can we please get over the class envy.

    Check your reasoning: under FairTax, the wealthy will still pay more in taxes by virtue of the fact that they spend more at the retail level (where the tax is applied).

  • Comm_reply
    darkart1 11/27/2011 7:40pm

    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.

  • caseybw 01/07/2011 7:04am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MnnmIoZYK0

    Fair vs Flat tax Video

  • kindrapring 01/07/2011 12:29pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Mouseclone 01/12/2011 7:59am

    “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?” -kindrapring

    Personally I would raise tariffs on all imports. The imports would include items that were shipped out, assembled, and brought back to the US; you would have to pay a tax labor serviced to put the product together by another country. Take the time to measure the MSRP (or retail price), domestic vs imports, and adjust accordingly.

    US Citizens shouldn’t suffer just because the government doesn’t have a backbone to corporations. I also feel that businesses should be the only one paying federal income tax. Then again, they should really be paying to the states and we should have a very small federal government that would be low cost to run.

  • Comm_reply
    Ramjr51 01/28/2011 7:50pm

    The truth of the matter is Corporations pay not one penny of tax anyway every cent is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. To raise corporate taxes is to cut your nose off to spite your face

  • Comm_reply
    shomas 01/28/2011 10:47pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    NHWynter 04/17/2011 6:52am

    The states would collect the tax and pass it on to the US Government. That’s how it works. How do you not understand that??

    This is NOT a sales tax ABOVE an income tax. The income tax gets abolished. As it should since, legally, it should have been considered unconstitutional.

    The other stuff you posted is just gibberish ranting.

  • kir 01/09/2011 5:32am

    By removing or at least limiting the reach of the IRS a lot of federal spending can be saved. The IRS is one of the largest predatory organizations I can think of. Take it from someone with personal experience. A national sales tax would be able to produce plenty of revenue for the govt on its own and people will no longer have to live in fear of whether or not they are going to be threatened by the IRS.

  • Comm_reply
    kir 01/09/2011 5:34am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    shauncorleone 03/11/2011 4:17am

    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.

  • mkail666 01/11/2011 7:52pm

    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).

  • pipewerKz 01/12/2011 1:29pm

    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

  • fakk2 01/13/2011 8:54am

    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.

  • jbkonkol 01/15/2011 3:56am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/16/2011 12:29pm

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/16/2011 12:31pm

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/16/2011 12:31pm

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/16/2011 12:32pm

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/16/2011 12:32pm

    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)

  • Comm_reply
    Ramjr51 01/28/2011 7:45pm

    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

  • Comm_reply
    Mahlalie 01/21/2011 12:21pm

    The government’s job is never to reward anyone, only to protect everybody.

  • Mazeman 01/16/2011 7:15pm

    Forget this BS bill if someone is smart and determined enough to not pay an income or flat tax tax it’s possible.

  • Comm_reply
    Ramjr51 01/28/2011 7:47pm

    And they don’t now? so what is the difference?

  • jafi6996 01/17/2011 5:24am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/17/2011 7:26am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    flynnfree 01/25/2011 9:55am

    The 23% is figured on today’s rates of Federal Gov’t spending. I completely agree with you, but the first step is to pass The Fairtax and then reduce the percentage over time as Gov’t spending is scrutinized and reduced.

  • jlkoolio 01/18/2011 7:53am

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/18/2011 12:02pm

    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.


Vote on This Bill

64% Users Support Bill

719 in favor / 396 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments