[ancient_geezer]

Alex Jones was a guest on George Noory's CoastToCoast last night. He had a VERY unpleasant observation about a possible implementation of a national sales tax.

Possible implementations are nothing more than hot air.Anyone can come up with fanciful scenarios, an actual implementation such as HR25 is what controls. I suggest you read it.

The national sales tax won't do away with social security, medicare and other similar taxes. That will still be taken from your paycheck on an ever upward spiral.

Sorry, but your prognostication does not comport with the actual legislative text supported in Congress:

 

H.R.25

Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25:

---

*** Snip ***

TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

• SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.

• SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.

• SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

• SEC. 104. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; EFFECTIVE DATE.

TITLE II--SALES TAX ENACTED

• SEC. 201. SALES TAX.

*** Snip ***

 

---

The commies are anxious to get behind this one.

***

Don't expect a national sales tax to be applied equally to all persons buying the same merchandise. That isn't what the lefty politicians have in mind.

Hmmm!

H.R. 25
Title: 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.

Sponsor: [R] Linder, John [GA-7] (introduced 1/7/2003)
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Cosponsors:

1. [R] Akin, W. Todd - 4/10/2003 [MO-2]
2. [R] Baker, Richard H. - 3/26/2003 [LA-6]
3. [R] Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 10/2/2003 [MD-6]
4. [R] Beauprez, Bob - 6/2/2003 [CO-7]
5. [R] Bilirakis, Michael - 11/18/2003 [FL-9]
6. [R] Bonilla, Henry - 4/2/2003 [TX-23]
7. [R] Brady, Kevin - 3/18/2003 [TX-8]
8. [R] Burns, Max - 3/31/2003 [GA-12]
9. [R] Burton, Dan - 5/6/2004 [IN-5]
10. [R] Carter, John R. - 3/31/2003 [TX-31]
11. [R] Collins, Mac - 2/25/2003 [GA-8]
12. [R] Cubin, Barbara - 3/2/2004 [WY- at large]
13. [R] Culberson, John Abney - 2/25/2003 [TX-7]
14. [R] Deal, Nathan - 3/17/2003 [GA-10]
15. [R] DeLay, Tom - 3/26/2003 [TX-22]
16. [R] DeMint, Jim - 9/3/2003 [SC-4]
17. [R] Doolittle, John T. - 3/25/2003 [CA-4]
18. [R] Duncan, John J., Jr. - 9/24/2003 [TN-2]
19. [R] Flake, Jeff - 2/25/2003 [AZ-6]
20. [R] Franks, Trent - 4/2/2003 [AZ-2]
21. [R] Gingrey, Phil - 3/31/2003 [GA-11]
22. [R] Goss, Porter - 5/11/2004 [FL-14]
23. [R] Granger, Kay - 7/24/2003 [TX-12]
24. [R] Graves, Sam - 4/27/2004 [MO-6]
25. [R] Gutknecht, Gil - 3/26/2003 [MN-1]
26. [R] Hall, Ralph M. - 2/25/2003 [TX-4]
27. [R] Hefley, Joel - 4/3/2003 [CO-5]
28. [R] Hensarling, Jeb - 6/2/2003 [TX-5]
29. [R] Hoekstra, Peter - 2/6/2004 [MI-2]
30. [R] Isakson, Johnny - 9/3/2003 [GA-6]
31. [R] Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 9/3/2003 [NC-3]
32. [R] Keller, Ric - 9/15/2003 [FL-8]
33. [R] King, Steve - 2/25/2003 [IA-5]
34. [R] Kingston, Jack - 4/8/2003 [GA-1]
35. [R] Lewis, Jerry - 4/2/2003 [CA-41]
36. [R] McInnis, Scott - 10/8/2003 [CO-3]
37. [R] Miller, Candice S. - 6/2/2004 [MI-10]
38. [R] Miller, Gary G. - 4/30/2003 [CA-42]
39. [R] Miller, Jeff - 4/30/2003 [FL-1]
40. [R] Neugebauer, Randy - 10/29/2003 [TX-19]
41. [R] Norwood, Charlie - 3/17/2003 [GA-9]
42. [R] Otter, C.L. - 7/14/2004 [ID-1]
43. [R] Pearce, Stevan - 3/25/2003 [NM-2]
44. [D] Peterson, Collin C. - 1/7/2003 [MN-7]
45. [R] Sessions, Pete - 5/11/2004 [TX-32]
46. [R] Shadegg, John B. - 3/31/2003 [AZ-3]
47. [R] Smith, Nick - 7/9/2004 [MI-7]
48. [R] Stearns, Cliff - 5/4/2004 [FL-6]
49. [R] Tancredo, Thomas G. - 4/30/2003 [CO-6]
50. [R] Taylor, Charles H. - 9/15/2003 [NC-11]
51. [R] Thornberry, Mac - 3/11/2004 [TX-13]
52. [R] Toomey, Patrick J. - 3/10/2004 [PA-15]
53. [R] Wilson, Joe - 5/22/2003 [SC-2]
54. [R] Young, Don - 4/30/2003 [AK-at large]

[Myrddin]

I read through HR25. I see no explicit protection that guarantees that the rate of tax assessed for any given transaction shall be identical for any and all persons who wish to conduct that transaction. The legislation delves into issues of "poverty level" suggesting that some means testing is intended. That smacks of preferential treatment for some class of income earners vs the rest of the population. Assessing different taxation on the same transaction violates the equal protection clause.