Posted on 01/06/2011 3:52:22 AM PST by phil_will1
Washington, DC—On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Congressman Rob Woodall (GA-07) introduced H.R. 25, the FairTax. The FairTax legislation eliminates the current income tax paradigm and replaces it with a system of taxation based on consumption. The bill was introduced on Wednesday with 47 original co-sponsors—the most original co-sponsors the bill has ever had for its initial introduction.
“I committed to the Seventh District of Georgia that my efforts in Congress would focus on reclaiming freedom for the American people. It is for that reason that I am proud to make the FairTax—the only bill that restores transparency and simplicity to our tax code—my very first action in Congress. I have said since its inception that the FairTax is not a tax bill; it is a freedom bill,” Woodall said.
Woodall, who was sworn-in to Congress earlier in the day, played an integral role in crafting the original text of the FairTax as former Congressman John Linder's Chief of Staff when the bill was originally introduced in 1999.
"Our current tax system is a bloated, convoluted mess that gives government power over Americans' pockets. With 47 Members of Congress and counting signing their names to the FairTax, we are closer than ever before to voting on legislation that eliminates the frustrating mess that is the IRS."
Although the FairTax was introduced with 47 original co-sponsors, Woodall anticipates adding many more Members of Congress to the bill. Once the FairTax is introduced with the original co-sponsors, Members are able to sign on to the bill as co-sponsors throughout the 112th Congress.
"The number of signatures on the FairTax this time around is a testament to the will of the people. It is clear that Americans do not want to have their hard-earned money taken away and they want to reclaim the freedom to spend their money how they choose and when they choose.”
The list of original co-sponsors is as follows:
1) Tom Price (GA)
2) Brian Bilbray (CA)
3 ) John Carter (TX)
4 ) Michael Conaway (TX)
5 ) John Duncan (TN)
6) Virginia Foxx (NC)
7) Steve King (IA)
8) Michael McCaul (TX)
9) Pete Olson (TX)
10 ) John Sullivan (OK)
11 ) Mac Thornberry (TX)
12) Phil Gingrey (GA)
13) Roscoe Bartlett (MD)
14) Don Young (AK)
15) Ander Crenshaw (FL)
16) Todd Akin (MO)
17) Lynn Westmoreland (GA)
18) Tom Graves (GA)
19) Gus Bilirakis (FL)
20) Ted Poe (TX)
21) Randy Neugebauer (TX)
22) Jeff Miller (FL)
23) Robert Wittman (VA)
24) Jack Kingston (GA)
25) Marlin Stutzman (IN)
26) Jeff Flake (AZ)
27) Billy Long (MO)
28) Cliff Stearns (FL)
29) Tim Walberg (MI)
30) Dennis Ross (FL)
31) Dan Boren (OK)
32) Mo Brooks (AL)
33) Darrell Issa (CA)
34) Richard Nugent (FL)
35) Tim Scott (SC)
36) Blake Farenthold (TX)
37) Jeff Duncan (SC)
38) Rob Bishop (UT)
39) Mike Pence (IN)
40) Sandy Adams (FL)
41) John Mica (FL)
42) Sue Wilkins Myrick (NC)
43) Dan Burton (IN)
44) John Culberson (TX)
45) James Lankford (OK)
46) Mike Pompeo (KS)
47) Gary Miller (CA)
###
-- Jennifer Drogus Communications Director Congressman-elect Rob Woodall
Seventh District of Georgia 202.225.4272 | jennifer.drogus@mail.house.gov
bump!
“Jim Jordan’s name is not on that list though he insists he is a surporter.”
There are a number of house members who will be signing on in the next few weeks. The goal is to have 100 co-sponsors by the end of the first quarter (in the house). Forty seven is a good start. Most, but not all, of last session’s co-sponsors are on that list of 1st day co-sponsors in this session. There are also a lot of freshmen who will be receptive.
“my only objection to the fair tax is if properly implemented, it gives the Fed too much money! (23%)”
“It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ‘in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #21
The current system enables and facilitates higher taxes on some because of its inherent ability to create a system in which politicians hide the true cost of taxation and mete out tax preferences to political allies.
Fair tax, Flat tax, This tax, That tax. Any system of taxation will require an agency to print forms and instructions, collect the money, and enforce the law. Any talk of eliminating the IRS is juvenile and ill informed.
“So what is in this Fair Tax Bill designated HR 25?”
It’s a tax reform proposal which eliminates income taxes (both individual and state), payroll taxes (both employer and employee), estate and gift taxes - pretty much all current federal taxes with the exception of excises. In their place would be an NRST (National Retail Sales Tax) levied at the point of sale to an end using consumer. It would be levied at a rate of 23 cents per dollar spent. There would also be a rebate to ensure that no one would pay taxes (on a net basis) up to poverty level consumption.
It would provide dramatic economic stimulus and restore the Constitutional rights usurped over the years by the current tax system.
Find out more at www.fairtax.org
“You do a search and it comes up in 2007, 2009, 110th congress etc.”
It has been introduced into every session of congress since 1999 (in the house). There has been a companion senate bill since about 05, I think. This is why getting more 1st day co-sponsors than ever before is a big deal.
“Seems like folks approve of this bill without reading it.. sound familiar?”
We do have a problem with members signing on as co-sponsors but not understanding the bill well enough to defend it or educate their constituents as to its importance. However, in areas where congress members do understand it and its enormous benefits, it has proven to be politically a winner. Rob Woodall won his seat primarily because he convinced the voters that he would be the most effective advocate for the bill in the US house. Every Republican running for that seat (vacated by the retirement of the bill’s previous primary sponsor) ran on the FairTax and tried to convince voters that he would do more to advance the FairTax than the others. Woodall won that debate and therefore he is the one who raised his right hand yesterday.
I do think that the new group of freshmen house members “gets it” more than many of the incumbents. Of course, the current tax system favors incumbents because it facilitates the exchange of tax preferences and earmarks for campaign cash, aided and abetted by an army of well heeled lobbyists. The FairTax would be a critical component of any serious effort to reform that system and return accountability of our elected government back to the people. For that reason, lobbyists hate it and so do many career politicians - on BOTH sides of the aisle.
Seriously? Tax collection is “not a problem”?
I beg to differ. I consider it a HUGE problem when the government has the authority to comb through what was at one time considered private information: my personal finances. It is anathema to liberty to continue to allow this type of government intrusion into our personal lives.
Income tax, flat, round or square BAD!
Fairtax GOOD!
“Fair tax, Flat tax, This tax, That tax. Any system of taxation will require an agency to print forms and instructions, collect the money, and enforce the law. Any talk of eliminating the IRS is juvenile and ill informed.”
I respectfully but strongly disagree. The current system measures over 70,000 pages as measured by CCH. That was the total at the end of 2009; they don’t have the 2010 tally up yet.
http://www.cch.com/wbot2009/WBOT_TaxLawPileUp2009_%2827%29_f.pdf
We want to replace it with a system which is currently less than 150 pages. If you accept the number of pages as a reasonable approximation of the complexity of the two systems, that is about a 99.8% simplification. Even if Treasury augments the bill itself with 1,000 pages of amplifying instructions, that is still an enormous decrease in waste and efficiency.
Under a sales tax regimen, huge areas of complexity, such as different depreciation methods, useful lives of assets, depreciation recapture, investment tax credit, earned income credit, etc, etc, etc become obsolete.
However, it gets even better. There are approximately 120 million filers under the current system. Under the FairTax, there would be about 20 million. Of those filers, a very small number of “big box” retailers, car dealers, etc. would comprise a very high percentage of total retail sales. That means that points of sale/enforcement would be dramatically reduced.
There are absolutely enormous efficiencies to be had here. I would suggest that anyone who does not comprehend that has not studied the subject to any significant extent.
My point is that there are several tax collection methods. Flat tax, Fair tax, Income, sales, VAT, direct apportionment, representative apportionment, etc etc etc
The METHOD of tax collection, changing the system, changing HOW taxes are collected .... is not the problem.
The VOLUME of taxes collected is what hurts the economy and the individual tax payer. The volume is driven by spending. That is why it is spending that needs to be fixed first.
I’m going to chalk up my vote for Woodall in the winner column.
First, NO tax on income is equitable. Especially with the uneven playing field we are on.
Second, ANY tax on income is an invitation to the Congress to tweak and fiddle, just as has happened with the current tax code.
Third, taxes on CONSUMPTION are more equitable because they give you (the individual) the option to say NO. You are not obligated to BUY anything.
Fourth, the argument that the FairTax is the first step to a VAT is true to the extent that the sheeple MAY LET IT HAPPEN. IF the American people are as vigilant and demanding as they should be, it will never devolve into a VAT.
The Fair Tax, as embodied in HR25 is an excellent idea, worthy of serious consideration. Please encourage your elected officials, AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, to study it closely.
OH HELL YEAH!
Thank you Sue Myrick and Virginia Fox.
So who would collect all the money from those 20 million filers; the ghost of IRS agents past? I am not saying the Fair Tax is not more efficient than the current system. Almost any system designed by a blind pig would be more efficient than the monstrosity we have now. I AM saying “Any talk of ELIMINATING the IRS is juvenile and ill informed.” Maybe I should replace the word juvenile with knee jerk, but my original sentiment remains.
“So who would collect all the money from those 20 million filers; the ghost of IRS agents past?”
In most cases, the states would collect the NRST on behalf of the federal government and remit the funds to them. In most states, retailers are already filing sales tax returns and adding an NRST would involve adding an additional line to that filing. Both the states and the retailers would be allowed to keep 1/4% to defray their administrative costs. The current system, which imposes a much heavier administrative burden on businesses, has no such provision.
You do understand that under our so-called “voluntary” system of taxation, IRS agents do not collect the taxes, right? Most IRS agents do audits or otherwise pursue those who don’t “voluntarily” pay the proper amount. However, if you ask 3 different IRS agents the same question about tax law, you are quite likely to get 3 different answers. Is it any wonder that we need an army to enforce such an arbitrary and subjective system? Under the FairTax, those complexities simply disappear. I have been through sales tax audits with businesses that employed me, and I can tell you that they are trivial compared to income tax audits.
Perhaps the larger issue, however, is one referenced by a previous poster, which is, what business is it of the federal government to delve into every detail of your personal finances? If you no longer have an intrusive tax system, you no longer need an intrusive agency to enforce it. That is what we mean by eliminating the IRS.
Unfortunately you are incorrect. The cost of income tax is embedded into the cost of the goods and services. That is where the money to pay the tax comes from. So, in the US, typically 20% of the price of something is actually the tax burden of the people making or providing the good or service. The flat tax does not change this. The cost of taxes are still built into the price of the good or service being consumed.
When the good or service is provided via import, a large potion of that 20% leaves the United States and goes back to the country of origin. This gives foriegn competition within the United States a huge advantage over domestic suppliers. If the tax were no longer embedded in the price but added on at the time of sale, then it would not matter if the good or service was imported or not, the 20% would stay in the United States. Imports would lose a large part of their advantage and the US economy would boom. Just look at the current trade deficit. What would it do for tax revenues if 20% of that deficit stayed in the United States as sales tax?
The Fair Tax is the single greatest step the US could take to bolstering our economy and stop the flow of jobs out of the country.
That is a fallacy. The federal government collects roughly 20% of GDP as taxes. That 20% is built into the cost of goods and services. It doesn't matter how you collect it, you are still effectively raising the price of everything by 20% to cover the tax burden. The foriegn import does not have the 20% US tax burden to bear, it takes that 20% as a bonus.
Consider a Ford SUV selling for $20,000. $4,000 of that is going to the government from taxes paid by workers, investors, suppliers, Ford Motor Corp, etc. Meanwhile, on the Honda SUV imported from Japan selling for the same $20,000, most of that $4,000 heads back to Japan. Under the Fair Tax, the Ford would sell for $16,000 and at the time of sale the consumer would pay $4,000 in taxes. To compete, the Honda would also sell for $16,000 and the buyer would pay $4,000 in taxes. Under an income tax system, the government would only collect roughly $5 to $6 thousand dollars for the sale of these two vehicles. Under the fair tax system, the government would collect $8,000. So, under the Fair Tax system, the US consumer would not pay a nickel more in taxes than they already do, however government revenue would increase, lowering our debt. The trade deficit would shrink. Foreign competitors would lose a huge advantage, American labor would become much more cost effective and in general, our economy would boom.
So, in the US, typically 20% of the price of something is actually the tax burden of the people making or providing the good or service.If that was fact (it isn't) how does the 23% Fairtax rate (actually 30% as sales taxes are calculated) replace that, all the other taxes, reduce prices 20% AND fund a refund to every family in America, as they promise?
You can be the first to answer that after 10+ yrs of asking.
Oh I see. By eliminating the IRS you really mean reducing the size of the IRS. I understand eliminate sounds better, and that is important when you are trying to sell a new program, but it is still a misleading use of the language. The IRS is not going away.
“The IRS is not going away.”
Yes, it is. To borrow a phrase from the first President Bush: “watch and learn.”
Above taken directly from the text of
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.