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 31-60 of 163 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/10/2011 4:01pm

    Ok, that helps clarify things. Thanks for explaining! And you definitely make some thought-provoking points. I can definitely see how huge estates can be easily abused, such as was the case with William Randolph Hearst, but it also creates an internal conflict when compared with personal freedoms. I find it hard to condone taxing death, but if the estate tax was raised to an exorbatant amount like $50 – $100 million estate before it was taxed, then I could see voting for it. But still, as shown with RI in the following report, the estate tax is a had pill to swallow for anyone that is impacted by it: http://www.oceanstatepolicy.org/docs/LeavingRI/LeavingRI.pdf

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/10/2011 4:02pm

    *hard pill to swallow I meant

  • Comm_reply
    kuech722 03/19/2011 3:08pm

    But like any tax plan the estate tax does more harm than good. The reform needed in the estate tax would not be neccesary if the income tax was applied properly. Their should only be an estate tax in the person inheriting the property sells off the property for cash with no intention of continuing a family business are if the inheritance is done in cash and not property.

    A wealthy person who invest in stocks does not pay a tax on the increased value of the same amount of stocks until they are sold.

  • Comm_reply
    TEFinnegan 04/22/2011 6:48am

    However, if we are not taxing income, this point is moot. I believe no one would pay any tax on the sale of the inherited property, because it is “used”. The FairTax only applies to “new” properties.

  • Comm_reply
    TEFinnegan 04/22/2011 6:43am

    The families you mentioned do not, today, hold disproportionate amount of influence over politicians? I am just not getting how you believe that having already imposed estate taxes, at some point, has diminished their power.

  • Comm_reply
    peacerenity 05/15/2011 2:00pm

    You’re forgetting about the fact that wealth doesn’t guarantee political success. Just look at the stigma placed on Romney and Whitman who spent their own money to try to get elected: many people accused them of trying to “buy” the election and it backfired on them.

    Plus, if someone comes from a really wealthy family like the Rockefellers, many people would accuse them of being out of touch with normal Americans and their wealth would be a political liability. There’s more at play than just money.

    The thing with public financing of campaigns is an ideological thing. Public financing means that Republicans can be forced, through their taxes, to fund the campaign of a Democrat whom they disagree with, and vice versa. It’s kind of like using tax money to fund abortions through Planned Parenthood: people don’t like their money being abused (as they see it).

  • Comm_reply
    OriginalBAC151 06/03/2011 2:54pm


    Your argument here is faulty relating to running for office, just look at Obama, he didn’t come from a family background with wealth…he was able to raise more cash for his election than any other candidate in presidential election history, all without public funds!

  • Comm_reply
    kuech722 03/19/2011 3:12pm

    The idea of prevent companies from getting too large is to limit the power they have on individual markets so risk can be spread out as well as allowing competition to prosper.

    I like this because originally the idea of the income tax was to insure the flow of capital throughout the system and protect the value of the currency. Unfortunately we have those politicians who have corrupted a perfect system.

    Please remember we are a Constitutional Republic based on a democratic representative govt. and not a democracy.

  • Comm_reply
    TEFinnegan 04/22/2011 6:38am

    And you think an estate tax would stop someone who wanted to destroy a whole section of the economy?

  • Comm_reply
    Chiefcook 02/23/2011 6:54am

    If the FairTax were to exempt “necessities” it would create two problems. First, who determines what is a necessity? Lobbyists would have a foothold and the exemptions would multiply. This is the reason for no exemptions!
    Second; the rich and wealthy would be at a much higher reward to avoid taxation. Let me explain. Low income people receive the prebate which will untax the basic necessity of the meat they purchase. (Chicken, chuck roast or ground beef at about $3.00@lb.) Middle income people receive the same prebate however they will buy a higher quality meats (Ground round, London Broil, etc ($6.00@lb.) They pay tax on the extra $3.00. The wealthy people will purchase lobster tail, fillet minion, Delmonico steaks, etc at about $20.00@lb. They will also receive the $3.00@lb prebate value but will pay more taxes on the meat they buy. If you exempt food (the meat) look at the advantage that the wealthy people would receive. Is that fair?

  • Comm_reply
    peacerenity 05/15/2011 2:03pm

    I think you should clarify that when you say “no exemptions” you aren’t counting the prebate as an exemption.

    I agree on the not exempting necessities part. If you didn’t have to pay taxes on food, shelter, etc., then someone can buy incredibly expensive food and live in a million dollar house and pay no taxes. Just seems like a bad idea.

  • Comm_reply
    TheViking 01/14/2011 4:46am

    Actually sir, with the Fair Tax the poorest people in america would benefit because people who are at or below the poverty line would get a waiver or a tax credit from the government for necesities like food. Add to that the fact that everytime one of the evil rich buy a yacht or something like that they will pay a tax on it. I urge you to read the Fair Tax book by Neil Boortz, please if after reading it you still don’t like the idea then that’s fine, but don’t listen to what the media has to say about it, they are uniinformed.

  • Comm_reply
    Misty534 01/20/2011 1:04pm

    I totally agree with you, if this bill passes there will be so many more jobs lost, so many more people on the streets, and many more people trying to get whatever gov. help they can receive to survive. So the tax payers money will be spent even more, we will be in debt even more. The cycle will continue to downfall if this bill passes. The only people that will remain in their homes unharmed by this bill will be the people that can afford to pay their increased taxes, and there are so many people that can’t afford it. This is depressing.

  • Comm_reply
    Sapphireyes 01/25/2011 2:46am

    Misty, did you READ the bill? Explain to me how lifting a crushing burden off the backs of ordinary folk will cause job loss and “the cycle [to] continue to downfall [sic]”. Ordinary people will be LESS dependent upon employers for everything if we truly shift from income limitation to consumption limitation. Taxation is limitation, and people do the silliest things to reduce their taxes. Cash flows will improve for individuals because they’ll see their entire earnings then get to decide where to spend the money, rather than never even seeing a large chunk of their money because it was siphoned off before they were paid.

  • Comm_reply
    NHWynter 04/17/2011 6:45am

    Misty – Clearly you don’t understand economics or this bill. You would NOT be paying more in taxes if you are at the poverty line. In fact, you’d be paying LESS.

  • Comm_reply
    ShuRugal 01/24/2011 8:14am

    I agree completely. I currently earn roughly $15,000 (prior to taxes) and pay roughly 10% federal tax on it. Switching to the proposed 23% flat sales tax would double the amount of money i pay in income tax when i am barely scraping enough to get by on as it is.

    All this will do is shift the tax burden onto the middle and lower taxes, who have to spend 90% or more of their income to get by, while allowing millionaire CEOs who save 90% of their income to hoard even more cash instead of putting it to work in the economy.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/24/2011 12:36pm

    ShuRugal, if you make $15k before taxes, on a 40 hour work-week, you’re making less than minimum wage. This year, your tax liability is 12.21% of $15k if filing single. I’ve lived on $5.75/hr. It’s hell. But, then again, it was my choices through my life that put me there. Let’s assume, you, and anyone making minimum wage over the age of 21 or 22 (about the age of the average college graduate) on a 40hr workweek or less made no choices which stop you from working more or at a better job. Let’s even say all these people were hit by an 18wheeler and that’s all they can work. Then yes, this would be an unjust bill, putting undue burden on them. But since we have to take responsibility for how much we work, where we work, where we live, what we spend our money on, then how can we say these people aren’t to blame?

  • Comm_reply
    Sapphireyes 01/25/2011 2:54am

    ShuRugal, the bill doesn’t propose an income tax, so your income tax bill would not rise. If you calculated the decreased tax you would pay on food, water etc., then add back in the rebates possible for those who choose to file, I think you would find your math works out differently. However, the bill doesn’t give enough specifics to do a proper calculation so I only ask you to keep in mind the value of liberty and privacy.

  • Comm_reply
    Ramjr51 01/28/2011 8:03pm

    No withholding taken, and no FICA tax, your 100% paycheck is bigger.
    Consumer goods stop having the 20% hidden tax, so prices fall accordingly.
    In place of a long list of exemptions,
    legal residents receive a Prebate each month, to pay the tax on necessities.
    EFFECTIVE TAX RATE is reduced from 23% according to spending vs saving.
    SPEND $22,050/yr = 0.00%
    SPEND $25,000/yr = 2.74%
    SPEND $40,000/yr = 10.34%
    SPEND $70,000/yr = 16.25%
    SPEND $100,000/yr = 17.83%
    SPEND $500,000/yr = 21.99%
    SPEND $ 1 Million/yr = 22.49%
    NO forms to file or records to keep
    Used goods are not taxed a 2nd time
    Social Security/MediCare is 100% paid.

  • Comm_reply
    elvismcneely 01/31/2011 5:35am

    Nice breakdown. The hidden tax is higher than 20% on most goods.

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

    If you are single and do not itemize you probable are paying

    $930 in Social Security
    $217 in Medicare taxes and
    $625 in income taxes
    $1,772 in total
    leaving you with a spendable income $13,228
    your tax rate is 11.81%

    Under the fairtax
    $15,000 = 100% of your paycheck
    $2,348 = Total annual rebate
    $17,348 = Total spending income
    $3,990.04 = 23% of $17,348 = taxes payed
    $1,642.04 = 3,990.04 taxes payed – rebate = net, or effective taxes payed.
    your effective tax rate is 10.9% = ($1,642.04 net taxes)/(15,000 income)

    I don’t see how the fairtax hurts you any.

  • Comm_reply
    slatch 02/04/2011 8:35am

    In addition, your math doesn’t even figure in the reduced cost of goods due to th elimination of corporate taxes passed onto the consumer. So ShuRugal’s tax burden would be even less and likely be eliminated completely.

  • Comm_reply
    TEFinnegan 04/22/2011 7:00am

    Considering the greed of most corporations, I do not see a drop in the prices immediately. They will just make higher profits, for a bit. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, once the competition kicks in then, perhaps, we will see a drop in prices.

  • Comm_reply
    Chiefcook 05/07/2011 11:49am

    Competition will kick in on day one! In 2005 GM introduced “employee pricing” on new autos to clear out their inventory before the next model year. How long did it take Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and other mfg’s to join the pricing market? DAYS

    WalMart introduced a new generic prescription drug program of $4.00. How long did it take Walgreens, CVS, Publix and other drug outlets to match it? DAYS. And Publix then began providing certain prescriptions for $0.00.

    Basic economics will bring down the prices as the businesses will compete for their market share. Do not forget that the “inventory tax credit” lowering the existing inventory on Day One by 23% to off set the already paid income tax costs is there. All Consumers will know this and will shop elsewhere if the business does not lower their prices!

  • Comm_reply
    peacerenity 05/15/2011 2:10pm

    You need to read the bill. In the Fair Tax, prebates are given at the level that a person living at the poverty line (about $20,000 per year) is calculated to require for food, shelter, etc. In short, everyone gets cash payments for 23% of necessities to offset what they’ll be paying in taxes on that amount. So people that live frugally (the poor and the lower middle class) would pay little, no, or actually make money from their taxes.

    Thus, the Fair Tax targets those who spend lots of money beyond the poverty level—aka the rich. But that’s okay, because they’re being taxed because they choose to spend more.

    On an unrelated note, these “millionaire CEOs” who save 90% of their income are actually investing it in the economy, not hiding it in their mattress. Spare me the class warfare.

  • Comm_reply
    Sapphireyes 01/25/2011 2:38am

    Empty-headed partisan dismissal of good ideas within flawed bills solves nothing; rather it’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This bill’s rebate provisions do give it a progressive flavor. Exchanging income for sales tax isn’t trading the evil we know for an evil we don’t. Sales taxes allow individuals freedom to choose their tax rate, according to what items they choose to buy. Better still, reporting becomes optional, better preserving privacy for those who choose NOT to file for a rebate.

    Liberty itself is based on privacy and individual choice. This tax bill will do much to restore liberty in the USA… IF the IRS is also abolished. It’s critical that this bill be improved to clearly repeal ALL empowering legislation for the IRS. The 16th Amendment does not REQUIRE an income tax; it merely ALLOWS Congress to collect income taxes. So, Congress CAN abolish the IRS. Do it now. Just do it.

    In case you’re wondering, I’m neither Republican nor Democrat.

  • Comm_reply
    shomas 01/28/2011 8:01pm

    The fairtax is a national retail sales tax with a rebate. When America adopts the fairtax, society will have said we do not want to tax your poverty level spending. No one will pay taxes on their poverty level spending. This rebate is what you over payed.

    When a families spending is;
    1 x poverty level, their effective tax rate is 0%
    2 x poverty level, their effective tax rate is 11.5%
    4 x poverty level, their effective tax rate is 17.25%
    8 x poverty level, their effective tax rate is 21.125%

  • Comm_reply
    cpltony 01/29/2011 3:39am

    The FairTax is actually progressive because due to the prebate no one pays any tax up to the poverty level.

    1) Every non-business end-Consumer pays the SAME at-the-cash-register sales tax rate (23%) on each purchase of NEW Goods & Services
    2) EVERY household receives the SAME amount of ‘prebate’ payment every month based only on the number of LEGAL residents in household.
    3) Income Tax permanently goes to ZERO.
    4) Social Security & Medicare Tax permanently goes to ZERO
    5) Business Entity Taxes go to ZERO
    5) SALES TAX RATE on NEW Goods & Services for a household of four (4) is
    a) SPEND $22,050/yr = 0.00%
    b) SPEND $25,000/yr = 2.74%
    c) SPEND $40,000/yr = 10.34%
    d) SPEND $70,000/yr = 16.25%
    e) SPEND $100,000/yr = 17.83%
    f) SPEND $500,000/yr = 21.99%
    g) SPEND $1Million/yr = 22.49%

    May I recommend researching the prebate as I feel it would change your stance on the issue substantially. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have on it.

  • Comm_reply
    elvismcneely 01/31/2011 5:30am

    The fairtax is progressive. Here is how: If you spend more than $900k dollars a year, you will pay 23% of your spending to the fairtax tax. A couple who spend $50k a year will pay 13.3% per year (ironically the 2011 income tax rate if you make $50k). If you are considered poor (determined by federal poverty guidelines) you will pay no taxes. All of these examples are taking into account the fairtax prebate. How much more progressive do you want it to be? The rich spend more and will pay a higher tax rate…

  • Comm_reply
    saber 02/07/2011 7:53pm

    You are correct.It would bury the low income wage earners.

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