H.R.4646 - Debt Free America Act

To establish a fee on transactions which would eliminate the national debt and replace the income tax on individuals. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To establish a fee on transactions which would eliminate the national debt and replace the income tax on individuals. as introduced.
  • Short: Debt Free America Act 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 1-30 of 33 total comments.

  • idamae 07/08/2010 8:27am

    Seriously? Easy way to get people on board – lure them with a promise to eliminate the IRS and income tax. How typical.
    Read the bill – “There is hereby imposed on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction…The term ‘specified transaction’ means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument…
    The term ‘transaction’ includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions.”
    Sooo, will your employer owe 1% of your paycheck as they send it to your bank? You pay 1% for direct deposit? Move any amount from checking to savings = 1%? Get $20 at the ATM or teller window=1%? How many times can you be taxed on the same amount of money? And when will you say ENOUGH?

  • Comm_reply
    queendancer77 09/12/2010 5:07am

    All those 1 percents still don’t exceed what is now being payed out in income tax AND sales taxes…(In GA, I’m paying 6% on my income AND 3-7% on my sales taxes.)

    With that said, this bill favors people who don’t move money, savers and investors—which most of America isn’t smile. Saving and investing don’t necessarily spark economic growth. I think those two points are better worth an argument.

  • Comm_reply
    JoeElector 10/07/2010 7:46am

    You must be reading a different Bill queendancer. – The 1% on every transaction retail, wholesale, etc. is a VAT tax. The 1% compounds as you proceed through the Value chain.

    If you think that a 1% VAT remains 1%, that is another inaccurate perspective. Just review the Income Tax trajectory from it’s “CAPPED” beginnings.


  • Comm_reply
    zoephoenix 11/05/2010 12:45pm

    No, we have a spending problem AND a taxing problem. The current federal income tax system is unfair and punishes the people who produce and rewards the people who sit at home and choose to do nothing. Why should I have to pay $4 out of every $10 that I bring into my household back to the government while Susie down the road gets $5,000 simply because she got pregnant twice when A) there is such a thing as free contraception and B) when she knew she couldn’t afford to take care of them in the first place and now she wants me to pay for her children via the government? The government is more than happy to steal my money to give to the have-nots.

    If it’s 1% on every transaction, I’d rather pay that than the 40% to 50% that they’re taxing me at the end of every year.

  • Comm_reply
    cklopez 11/05/2010 7:10pm

    I am in complete agreement with supporting the bill for a transactional basis. You are only taxed on what you “spend” and it doesn’t penalize you for what you “make”. The reason why so many jobs, businesses, and people send their US Dollars overseas is because of this taxing system. We are one of the most “heavily taxed nations” in the world. We already pay taxes for everything. Taxes on real estate, taxes for your license, sales taxes, taxes on capital gains, taxes for import, et cetera. The list goes on and on forever. The difference between those taxes and “Income Tax” is you choose when to pay it. With income tax they just “Strong Arm” it from you, and leave a bitter taste in you mouth.

  • Comm_reply
    cklopez 11/05/2010 7:11pm

    As a follow up this current tax system is implemented in all the areas of the Caribbean where the rich hide their money, so why not do what attracts the money? Not to mention it will pay off our national debt in 7 years, (estimated) which will allow us to “Contract” our money supply, and restore faith in our US Dollar (which is plummeting). Currently the only answer is to print now over 1 trillion new US Dollars and devalue our currency by over 40% through the next 25 years. Sometimes you just have to analyze the situation – since 1790 we have only been free of public debt for 2 years (1834-35). Obviously this system is broken and we need to try a new approach

  • tbgallien 07/09/2010 9:04am

    We already have a transaction tax = sales tax.
    How about this, abolish the federal reserve, eliminate income tax, and cut government spending by…say, 50% and when our debt is paid off, move the dollar back to the gold standard.
    And continue to scale back the government to the size of the constitution.
    Semper Fi

  • Comm_reply
    queendancer77 09/12/2010 5:11am

    What should the government cut to amount to that 50%? (We can start with war spending, certainly, but after that…?)

    I’m asking because I honestly want your opinion. I am always hearing, “Cut government spending!” but it is rarely specified how, in any feasible way, that won’t result in a spike in job loss and even greater economic instability.

  • Comm_reply
    guiltybyproxy 10/04/2010 6:37pm

    Here’s a start to reducing government spending. Now keep in mind that its gotta get a lot worse before we can make things better.

    Senate and House annual wage total $93,000,000
    that’s about 180k/yr per rep.This is salary only and does not include benefits
    (I don’t know about you all but I really don’t think they deserve that kind of pay considering the decline of the country over the last 30yrs)
    So here’s how it starts:

    Each public representative should be paid the median wage for the area he/she represents.

    Lets use NY as an example:
    Median wage est $60,000/yr
    That means our representative will draw a wage of 60,000 dollars.

    Using this as an average for mathematical ease we come up with

    60,000 × 535 representatives = $32,000,000

    This simple adjustment for services rendered by our illustrious vote casters would then save the tax payers $60,000,000 every year.

    So there’s the first way to shave off a quick 60 million dollars every year.

  • Comm_reply
    lieslieslies 10/17/2010 10:14am

    We can also cut all the “compensation”. I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that says that we are to pay for a staff for the FLOTUS. In fact, this is what it says: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

  • Comm_reply
    lieslieslies 10/17/2010 10:14am

    And here’s what we’re paying for the FLOTUS’ staff:
    Sure, it seems like peanuts in the grand scheme of things, but you can add it to the list with outrageous pensions, etc. What is the presidential pension, anyway? Because, as I read that previous quote from Article II Section I of the Constitution, it says “DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH HE SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED” (emphasis mine), it doesn’t say we are to continue to pay him when he’s no longer in office. If he wants a retirement plan, he should start one, just like anyone else has to. And from Wikipedia:

  • Comm_reply
    lieslieslies 10/17/2010 10:15am

    “Beginning in 1959, all living former presidents were granted a pension, an office and a staff. The pension has increased numerous times with Congressional approval. Retired presidents now receive a pension based on the salary of the current administration’s cabinet secretaries, which is $191,300 as of 2008.43 Some former presidents have also collected congressional pensions.44 The Former Presidents Act, as amended, also provides former presidents with travel funds and franking privileges.”
    So, enough of the extra benefits. If you want to serve your country, DO IT.
    In order to cut spending, cutting government bureaucracies, including all the many agencies within the government, and especially non-elected officials, is what I’d call a pretty good step. It worked for Harding and Coolidge.

  • tbgallien 07/09/2010 9:05am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Another sneaky way to pass a value added tax upon the people.
    Semper Fi

  • Comm_reply
    Pathwerker 09/20/2010 4:25pm

    Not sure I completely hate it either but I am wary. I think you said it best before. The bill favors saving and investing, something most Americans simply cannot do.

  • idahocowgirl 09/02/2010 6:27am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    What a bunch of sneaky, underhanded tactics! I just love the title of the bill! So deceiving!

  • nita870032 09/06/2010 6:34pm

    It is going to help the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. A Tax when you get your check, taxed when you deposit it, taxed when you take it out, and taxed when you spend it. We are going to pay for the war and bailouts with the sweat off our backs. Don’t be mistaken, this is going to happen. The banks are getting the software ready to implement this. Those of us with social security and retirement that is minimally taxed, but eligible for a refund will now pay far more than before, with a “tax credit” that is non-refundable? 1% sounds so innocent. It’s anything but innocent, it is greed showing it’s ugly head again. The recession has us on our knees now, get ready to be flat on your face.

  • wakeupamerica 09/10/2010 7:17am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    No way! The middle class is being taxed enough. Veto this! Our country gives enough money away to other countries. Stop that. They don’t appreciate it anyway. Enough is enough. Our country is going down the tubes. Write Obama & your Congressmen. No to this stupid bill!!!!!!

  • queendancer77 09/12/2010 4:52am

    I’m not sure that I completely hate this bill.

    Consider how much we are taxed just for earning money now—so much of our income we never see. So let us imagine that income tax doesn’t exist. Would the 1% to get your check, 1% to deposit it, 1% to withdraw it OR swipe your card somewhere exceed the amount of money that is being sucked away annually in income tax every year? I don’t know about you, but I’m paying MORE THAN 3% PER CHECK in income taxes AND I still pay sales taxes when I spend…

    Secondly,there isn’t the additional tax on some “necessary” items (kind of like EBT food items, I’m assuming). That sounds beneficial to everyone that, well, eats.

    I’m reading these cliches about the rich getting richer off of this bill but no one has given specifics about how. This bill favors the rich NO MORE THAN our current IRS does with its loopholes and inconsistencies.

  • x083 09/21/2010 8:10am

    there is nothing federal about the federal reserve.

    and ill tell you what, we dont need a tax to replace the income tax, we just need it gone.

    we have more government agencies and departments than we can count

    get rid of 75% of government, and lets restore the republic, lets print our own money again like we did when this country was started. that was partially the cause of the Revolutionary War, even ben franklin said it himself

    search ’ the money masters ’ on google video

  • superpeople 09/21/2010 2:12pm

    No one reads before they comment. Sad state society is in. It is from a democrat so the wired republican brain automatically translates to, bad.

  • lfshadow 09/27/2010 8:12pm

    This so called 1% tax will end up costing all of us taxpayers a lot more than 1% and probably more than we are currently paying in income taxes. Otherwise why would the government come up with the idea? We all know they need the money to cover the $13+ trillion they spent in the past couple of years. You don’t think they would actually come up with an idea that would save taxpayers money and give them less, do you? And even if for some reason this was actually meant to save us all money by paying less in taxes, don’t you think we would have heard about it in a really big way by now?
    Think about it people!

  • cdrew14 09/28/2010 10:20am

    No! The 1% per transaction tax with the “promise” of repealing the income tax is only to get us to accept. Sometime before 2017 they’ll figure this isn’t working like they want it to, and then they’ll make a law to keep the income tax in addition to this tax. And in three years when the 1% is raised to 3%, you’ll start noticing the drain much more quickly….

    Of course it doesn’t matter if “we the people” don’t want it. They’ll just cram it down our throats like they did healthcare.

  • tswilcox 09/28/2010 6:59pm

    I’m undecided on this. One half of my brain says I’d be saving a ton more in relation to what is taken out currently from income tax. The other half warns me they could get this passed and then decide to keep the income tax at a later date. Not to mention once this tax is implemented what’s to stop them from raising the percentage at a later time? Still undecided…

  • Comm_reply
    tswilcox 09/28/2010 7:24pm

    As I read in more detail, (tell me if I’m wrong here) this bill includes a 1% credit for individuals with an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less and for joint returns of $250,000 or less. So basically it’s a wash for persons making 100k or less and couples making 250k or less?

  • NanShi 10/04/2010 7:55am

    Not sure I read it right either, my understanding it does away with the “tax credits” but not income tax, what am I missing? Too sneaky for my taste.

  • jag_fisch 10/09/2010 6:28pm

    If I understand the gist of this, we actually will get taxed twice or possibly three times, once for depositing or cashing our check, possibly to withdraw funds, then to purchase items or services. Sounds like more than 1% to me…

  • Comm_reply
    jag_fisch 10/09/2010 6:42pm

    Even more than that if you add a credit card purchase then pay that bill with a check. That would eliminate my crfedit card use! Also, this would start in it’s entirety while the individual income tax would would
    be phased out over the next 7 years. Though I’m not opposed to a flat tax, I see no reason to overlap the implementation of a straight flat tax for goods or service purchases (not financial transactions) with the individual tax. Create a clean break from one and immediately implement the other.

  • vlobato9817 10/27/2010 4:44pm

    Start charging high tariffs on imported goods especially from China…and bring back the manufacturing base to America…

  • Grandmama 10/30/2010 5:49pm

    Anyone doing the numbers? Your pension deposits $3000. in your account, this ‘tax’ takes $30.; you pay your mortgage of 1500., tax takes 15. and on and on and on. You decide to withdraw 1500. To pay your bills with cash…..tax takes 15. This would be highway robbery and would never come close to making the American people “Debt Free”. Vote for your FREEDOM on Nov.2,2010. God bless us all.

  • Comm_reply
    tswilcox 11/03/2010 2:55am

    Did you also not read the credit for single people of 100k and couples of 250k? Anyone under that mark is basically exempt from paying that tax.

Vote on This Bill

11% Users Support Bill

30 in favor / 244 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments