Enact The Fair Tax HR-25
The Fair Tax plan was created by and is supported by American citizens, not by the lobbyists who run Congress. So, inherently, it garners trust because it was created outside Washington DC.
It repeals the income tax, corporate tax, payroll taxes (FICA and MEDI), gift tax, and estate tax and replaces the current revenue stream with a national retail sales tax.
It lessens or solves so many problems that Congress has created by currying favor with special interests over so many years, including many of the problems that have led to the current economic crisis.
For example, eliminating the corporate tax and income tax will flood this country with investment from overseas. And with investment, jobs that we have been off-shoring for years will come back. Everyone wins except the lobbyists.
By taxing consumption and rebating life's necessities, it's effective rate (tax paid minus rebate) starts at zero and approaches the maximum rate the more you spend. So, the wealthy, who spend more, pay more.
It encourages savings and investment because investment gains not taxed. (What an idea!)
There are no loopholes.
Federal taxes are no longer withheld from wage earners and Joe-The-Taxpayer doesn't have to file anything with the Federal Government.
In fact, only businesses that sell at retail have to file and its a simple percentage of their sales AND the business is compensated with a small percentage of the tax remitted to offset its own compliance costs.
By eliminating the ability of Congress to manipulate the Byzantine Internal Revenue Code, the power of lobbyists over the Federal government is greatly diminished. And Congress won't be spending time on its interminable tweaking of the I.R.C.
If the GOP can't get behind an idea that benefits every single American then it deserves to disappear as a political party.
conservative father of 8 commented
Fair Tax is a smoke screen argument that even its supporters have no platform on what ir where to begin and what it should be because in the end, no such thing as a fair tax. What is fair to one person is not to another, even in the same philisophical circles.
Real Conservative commented
I'm for the Fair Tax, as long as the rate of taxation is 0%. Do away with the gratuitous wars, the welfare state, and other enormously expensive government operations, and the need for taxing the people will die.
J Scott Bielfeldt commented
Please make the FairTax proposal a part of your new agenda for America!
Rich C. commented
I think it important to call all the conservative talk shows over and over and over until they begin the discussion of HR-25.. Getting the word out over the airwaves would be a great thing.. Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin...... you guys listening out there? John Stossel understands...
Man, I can't believe there are so many ignorant people who call themselves republicans. Do you people even read these plans, or do you just believe whatever is spoon-fed to you by the likes of Huckabee and Boortz?
Seriously, read this thing. Perhaps any of you can point out any time in history where we actually were able to get rid of a tax - especially a major tax? You all should read up on how we got the income tax in the first place. The government convinced the farmers to support it by promising the income tax would replace tariffs. And it did.....for a few years. Then the income tax came back AND the tariffs skyrocketed back up.
The *exact same thing* will happen here. They will pass this tax with the promise to repeal the income tax, and then they'll keep both. If you're lucky, they *might* (and I find this highly improbable) remove the income tax for a few years, but believe me, it'll come back. Then your tax burden will be worse than ever, and everyone will have us republicans to thank.
I'm not worried though, they'll never pass it. You're trying to press a consumption tax onto a bunch of keynesians. A consumption tax is a disincentive to spending, which is anathema to their bankrupt theory of economics.
Toby Keith commented
Outside of Washington D.C. = teh good. Inside of teh beltway = teh ghey!
Taxes are for pussies! Somalia has it right. Libertiez FTW!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!
And let's get some more TRUCKNUTZ up in this bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am both a conservative and fairtax supporter. I see the fairtax has the most supporters, yet the leadership at this site or the republican party have refused to put it under consideration, in the accepted tab. Frankly I'm not going to vote for a republican candidate unless he is a conservative and fairtax support. I'd rather the republican party die, then be infected with blue blood republicans. Maybe ill find a home with libertarians.
The Soviet Union did not "pay everyone the same", there was a system of incentives for being especially productive or pursuing jobs which required more education. I don't doubt it was a clunky system, but so is the system of incentives in capitalist systems. I've worked with a person in a non-union factory who sat around looking at pictures of motorcycles on the internet all day and got paid far more than the people actually doing his job. Capitalism incentivizes consumer-oriented technological development far better than socialism, but is terrible at rewarding diligence in the lower echelons of the workforce, as I'm sure the Soviet Union was. Management is a problem that exists in all central planning, whether corporate or state. That cute little saying would ring true coming from nearly any low-level worker in America. It's easy to imagine Soviet proles idling in shops because they won't get paid more for making an extra unit or whatever, but the same problem exists in many capitalist shops without proper programs for incentivization. (Lee Harvey Oswald, though he rightly became disappointed with the Soviet system, believed that Soviets worked as hard as Americans) Realistically, management is not paying close attention to how many burgers you flip or parts that you grind. If you are unskilled, as long as you don't do anything amazing or egregious, you aren't likely to be rewarded in any way commensurate with your effort.
I'm not ignorant of the famines of the 1930s associated with forced collectivization, but they hardly support your previous assertion. Reread what you've wrote if necessary, you seem to have backpedaled. Furthermore, the famines were hardly inherent to socialism, they were a result of particularly poor management and an overly ambitious plan.
"Humans naturally prefer systems..." Do they? What basis do they have for comparison? In the context of modern capitalist society wherein people are not exposed to far leftist perspectives except through the most caricatured portrayals, I don't doubt that people believe they do prefer capitalism. Couched in the terms you have used, it seems a simple choice, but calling capitalism a system in which you can choose to work more and thereby earn more is a dangerously incomplete definition of capitalism. You could just as well say that a fundamental characteristic of human beings is that they want to work in an environment wherein they have democratic control over their workplace and are allowed to share proportionally in the produce of their work. Furthermore, many socialist systems do allow people to earn more by working more. Also, you should be ashamed of yourself for having used that "reduced to the same level of misery" line. I might as well start talking about the chains of the proletariat.
Also, the optimism of the presumed economist you reference is insane, the statistics you cite are dubious, both in their intrinsic validity and in the way you've applied them. You don't come close to demonstrating that it would be net revenue negative to eliminate legal loopholes and pursue wealthy delinquents. You also seem to imply that taxation rates were not actually high in the late 40s-60s because I used marginal rates? Even if collection rates were bad, were they bad enough that effective rates weren't higher? You don't address this, you just repeat all of the stuff you've posted 5 times in this thread alone.
What I like most about the FairTax is its simplicity, practicallity and shear logic. Just read the bill and compare it to what else is out there and then weigh the systems as to what is most fair and equitable for all. You cannot beat the FairTax, using that standard. In a heads-on debate, the FairTax wins every time. It's high time we abolish the current IRS system and replace it with the FairTax, which allows every taxpayer to keep his whole pay check and only pay federal taxes when he spends his money. You can say what you want about the rich spending less of a percentage of their income but how do you explain the payroll/ social security tax that hits the poor man from first dollar? The FairTax is the only taxation plan that fixes this problem. And when it comes to financing the household budget, under the FairTax no one pays any tax at all up to the poverty level, through the monthly prebate. Tell me what other taxing system does this? so that the playing field is level for everyone -- none but the FairTax. I'll say this: The libertarian idea of no taxes is fine in theory and I wish it were possible, but it is not practical. So that leaves us with choosing the best system we can devise, and that brings us back to the FairTax. I urge everyone who reads this to get more information about the FairTax and call his/her congress critter to support the FairTax as the best means of putting us back on the economic road to prosperity.
Goal oriented should stop looking at the Tax Rate Schedule and look at EFFECTIVE TAX PAYMENT RATES. The Tax Rate Schedule is "progressive," but John & Teresa Kerry (as one example) LEGALLY pay their Income Taxes at a 12% rate. That is a small fraction of the rate shown in the Tax Rate Schedule and is lower than the rate for most poor people.
Another criteria is the EFFECTIVE TAX COLLECTION RATE, which last year ran 48.8% of the Income Taxes owed. Sales tax collection rates run almost TWICE that, and they cost billions less.
As to the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union, most studies look at the "gains" REPORTED in the '30s, '40s, '50s and '60s. They DON'T LOOK at the disastrous DROP in the Standard of living that occurred in the first 20 years or more, when Lenin's Terror Policy was implemented, at least 208 complexes (towns surrounded by camps of the different "discipline regimes") of concentration camps were built, farms were being collectivized (millions of Ukrainians STARVED to death), churches were demolished and people were moved to cities to build factories and work in them, etc.
"Rewards" under socialism are backward. Everyone is paid the same, so the incentive is to do LESS work than anyone else. People there said, "The government pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work." In rural areas, more food was grown in home garden patches than on the massive collectivized farms.
Humans naturally prefer systems in which they can choose to work harder or longer AND THEREBY EARN MORE. Our tax system should NOT be designed to reduce EVERYONE to the same level of misery, penalizing the hardest working and most productive, by taxing them at HIGHER RATES.
Our Founding Fathers understood that, which is why they made an Income Tax un-Constitutional and gave us a 'consumption tax.' Under that system, the U.S. grew from a tiny country clinging to the East Coast of North America to a World Power in a little over 100 years, and our standard of living grew commensurately. People from all over the world flocked here because of the opportunity. We need to get back to that. Economists say the growth rate of our economy will TRIPLE.
Let's stick to the subject of the best tax system for the GOP to promote, the subject of this thread, and stop talk about other systems of government or reducing government spending. Those are worthwhile subjects, but not part of this thread.
The standard of living took 50 years to reach 1915 levels in the USSR? By what metric? Certainly not purely economic ones (which are not very good anyway). Care to clarify?
Human nature is multi-faceted and malleable. Altruism and a desire to cooperate are as much a part of it as greed and competitiveness. People exploit those that they view as part of an "other". In a culture that accepts and even encourages viewing people as "others", it is unsurprising that people will be unwilling to subsidize or trust other members of that culture.
The fastest period of economic growth in America occurred during the 50s, when there the top marginal income tax rate was 60 or 70%.
The 'prebate' does more than merely 'untax' all spending below the Poverty Level. It ends all debates about precisely WHAT items ARE 'necessities of life.' Fair Taxers simply DEFINE that term as WHATEVER a Poverty Level household buys.
But the 'prebate' is also what makes the Fair Tax TRULY 'progressive.' The Income Tax has a Tax Rate Code that is 'progressive,' but IN PRACTICE, amounts paid by truly wealthy people often equate to TAX RATES that are lower than those of Poverty Level people. Fair Taxers call that kind of taxation 'REgressive.'
Because there are no allowances, alternative minimas, exclusions, exemptions, deductions, ad infinitum, the 23% Fair Tax is just that. What you see is what you get. It applies to all services and NEW products bought at retail.
voluntary is the word, my bad.
The prebate is volentary, if you don't want to receive it you needn't apply. It's purpose is to provide relief to families that have to spend 100% of their earnings on necessities from the 23% tax. Join the discussion or read more at FairTaxNation.com. We welcome your input.
Natasha Hale commented
Only problem I have is I don't think there should be any rebates. If you don't want to pay taxes on "life's necessities", start a garden, dig a well, make your own clothes, etc. Who gets to decide what "life's necessities" are? That just opens it up to corruption.
The Fair Tax addresses the federal tax MESS, where the IRS collected only 48.8% of the Income Tax owed in 2007, and we paid more than $325 billion for "tax consultants" to help us complete our tax returns. It also turns incentives around and alerts the public every day as to the TAX RATE and how much government is costing. So it would definitely increase public pressure on Congress to REDUCE SPENDING. While State taxes, e.g., Motor Fuel Taxes (used to maintain roads), are not part of H.R. 25, many States base their income taxes on the federal Income Tax. When H.R. 25 passes, they will need to change. Some States have investigated what they might do and have found that "piggy-backing" their sales tax - i.e., applying it to services and NEW goods - will raise enough revenue to permit ENDING the State income tax and the REAL ESTATE TAX. This has a good deal of appeal, but it would NOT eliminate Motor Fuel Taxes. As I understand it, road maintenance, repair and replacement would be funded the way they are now.
A major advantage of a CONSUMPTION TAX is that the incentives produced FAVOR earning, saving and investing. You are taxed when you REMOVE something from the economy. A tax on income produces incentives FAVORING spending beyond your means and incurring debt. That applies to individuals, companies and government. Under a CONSUMPTION tax, the U.S. grew from virtually NOTHING to a world power in about 100 years. Then the Income Tax was passed, in a fit of socialistic enthusiasm, and things have gone downhill ever since. Actually, before application became broad and rates escalated, the Great Depression hit. The Income tax only became burdensome during World War II, when it was applied to virtually everyone, rates were raised to pay for the war, and payroll withholding was introduced. Even then, few people paid much attention, because everyone was focused on winning the war. There wasn't time to do much else. Most people had two jobs and even housewives worked for the first time.
Goal oriented needs to get off the socialism kick. This thread is about whether making the Fair Tax part of the GOP platform is a good idea. It is NOT about socialism vs. free enterprise. Anyway, Goal oriented is wrong. Socialism did NOT improve conditions for the average "comrade." It took them 50 or 60 years to get back to where they had been in 1915. Socialism is a "bust," largely because it is contrary to human nature. The STRONGEST advances were made in this country, under a CONSUMPTION TAX.
Guys, I really want to make a suggestion but I am out of votes, so please respond as if the content of this post were the suggestion itself, ok?
KILL THE BOURGEOISIE
As this comment section amply demonstrates, the bourgeoisie is a reactionary and very dumb force that acts against its own class interest and that of its working brothers. Therefore, we must send the bourgeoisie to the wall so that the glorious revolution may proceed. I propose that we plate a skull pyramid in gold in memorial of those who must be sacrificed to bring about the righteous and inevitable conclusion of the class war.
I'm not really here to convince anybody of the virtues of socialism, but I should point out that socialism was quite effective in the Soviet Union for nearly half a century (I know the USSR was around longer than that). The Soviet Union developed from a backwards, largely agrarian country to become one of two global superpowers in only 30 years, and it did this in spite of the opposition of most of the developed world and being twice devastated by war. Socialist governments built the infrastructure that has paved the way for the rapid economic growth of China and India. I'm not saying it would have been pleasant to live in either the USSR or China during the forced collectivization or Cultural Revolution or at many other times. You must consider that these nations would not have been capitalistic liberal democracies with a diverse economic base and a healthy middle class if they had not become socialist. They would have been dumping grounds for low value added industry without strong technology sectors and without strong internal consumer goods markets. In the first world, social-democratic governments have created some of the highest standards of living in the world in Scandanavia and Western Europe. This is obviously a very incomplete treatment, but like someone pointed out, I'm here to troll anyway. You are retarded and know nothing about history if you think that socialism categorically "does not work", though.