House Majority Leader Signs On To Linder’s Bill Abolishing the IRS

United States Congressman - John Linder ^ | April 3rd, 2003 | Congressman John Linder (R-Georgia)

[Remedy]

FAIRTAX BUILDS MOMENTUM
House Majority Leader Signs On To Linder’s Bill Abolishing the IRS Washington, D.C. - Congressman John Linder (R-Georgia) is pleased to announce that he has added more than 20 co-sponsors – including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) – to his innovative tax reform legislation, the FairTax. Linder’s bill, H.R. 25, would abolish all federal income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes, and replace them with a national retail sales tax.

"The momentum behind the FairTax continues to build, and Majority Leader DeLay’s co-sponsorship is just the latest signal that support for the FairTax is growing," said Linder. "The bill now has 21 co-sponsors – more than any other fundamental tax reform legislation in the House – and they represent a bipartisan coalition of members from across the nation. Not only do my colleagues recognize the harm done to the American people by the overly intrusive and burdensome income tax code, their constituents recognize it every April 15th," continued Linder.

The addition of DeLay and 14 other co-sponsors in the last month alone is just the latest positive news regarding the FairTax. In February, the annual report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers stated for the first time that elimination and replacement of the complex and arcane federal income tax code with a consumption tax would increase efficiency in the tax system and promote investment and growth. The report stated that a consumption tax, like the FairTax, could very well be the most suitable replacement for the income tax system.

The FairTax

I am the primary sponsor of The FairTax. The FairTax is one of the most exciting proposals to ever reach the American people. It offers long-needed tax relief – in the form of lower prices, nearly nonexistent compliance costs, and the ability to choose how much to spend in taxes – to all Americans, while eliminating the income tax and allowing Americans to keep 100 percent of their paycheck. The FairTax will dramatically reduce prices, protect and ensure funding of Social Security and Medicare, empower the low-income earners, and put choice and control back into the hands of every American. All the crucial elements are in place: a public that is eager and ready for a fairer tax system, and a Congress willing to seriously consider genuine tax reform. To be competitive in the next century and to renew the American dream, we must change the way we fund our national government.

The FairTax Act:

• Repeals the all corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes.

• Imposes a revenue-neutral national sales tax on all new goods and services at the point of final purchase for consumption. Business-to-business transactions and used products (which have already been taxed) are not subject to the sales tax.

• Rebates the sales tax on all spending up to the poverty level.

Results of the FairTax:

• Dramatically reduce the costs of goods and services by 20 to 30 percent.

• Allow you to keep 100 percent of your paycheck, pension, and Social Security payments.

• Gross Domestic Product will increase by almost 10.5 percent in the first year after enactment.

• Compliance costs would decrease by 90 percent.

• Real investment would initially increase by 76 percent relative to the investment that would be made under present law. While this increase would gradually decline, it remains 15 percent higher than under the existing tax structure.

• Exports would increase by 26 percent initially and would remain more than 13 percent above the level under the current tax system.

• Real wages will increase.

• Increases incentives to work by as much as 20 percent in many households, leading to higher economic growth and efficiency.

• Interest rates will fall 25 to 35 percent.

If you would like view the new FairTax PowerPoint slide presentation or consider the significant benefits of the FairTax in greater detail, please take some time to visit the "FairTax" section of my website located in the "Resource Headquarters."

Which of the following tax systems do you prefer?

Current system is fine.:4%

IRS and a flat income tax:13%

A national sales tax.: 78%

None of the above.: 4%

760 total votes

[ApesForEvolution]

Good news indeed! The majority of people that will be upset by this probably don't pay the confiscatory income taxes but rather take from the government instead. Abolish the IRS/IRS and set the people FREE.

[Remedy]

Hamilton in Federalist No. 21, December 12, 1787

"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."

[ApesForEvolution]

If the same entity owns a home as well as cash, the cash is at risk due to the liabilities a home creates. All liabilities should be owned by entities that will not endanger true assets.

[goldstategop]

I'm why I'm pleased to see Tom DeLay be a co-sponsor of the FairTax Plan. The greatest threat to our freedom is an IRS that seeks to know how much we make, where we make it and when we make it. Details of our personal lives the government shouldn't even know to begin with, for in the immortal words of William Blackstone, "to command a man's resources, is to have power of his will." And the income tax leads to an ever growing portion of one's income in the hands of the government, with all the concomittant loss of liberty. Moreover, under the income tax, who controls when you get to send your money to the government? Why, the bureaucrats and politicians! If the IRS were gone, we would have back virtually all of our freedom, have a higher rate of savings and be able to make useful investments instead of hiding our money in tax shelters to escape the reach of the IRS, and we would decide each year, through our individual consumption and spending patterns, exactly how much revenue the government will get. Now THAT is citizen empowerment. Along with no more complicated IRS income tax forms to fill out and a swarm of tax preparers and certified public accountants to advise you on complicated tax laws not even the IRS itself understands, y'all get the big picture of exactly why the FairTax Plan is so attractive. Plus, it works in the real world. States that have NO state income tax have a higher amount of personal income, increased savings and investment, higher productivity, and lower state budget deficits. Compare that to the IRS track record since the 20th century. We need a Tax Freedom Day in America and the best gift we can give ourselves and our children is to ensure the IRS becomes histoire.

[Dog Gone]

I'm very afraid of the Fair Tax. It will be a lot easier for Congress to hike it to feed their spending binges, because people won't notice the money gone from their paycheck. Just look at the gas taxes and tobacco taxes the government collects--state govts make more on each pack of cigarettes and each gallon of gas than the tobacco/oil companies do.

It would wipe out the underground economy. Even illegal aliens would be paying tax.

[Remedy]

Michigan's FairTax Volunteer Team - Home The FairTax will ensure funding of Social Security and Medicare. The FairTax will make the economy much more dynamic and prosperous. Consequently, federal tax revenues will grow. This makes it less likely that federal budget pressures will require Medicare or Social Security benefit cuts. Under the FairTax, Social Security will operate exactly as it does today, except that its funds will come from the FairTax. And, research shows that consumption is a more stable revenue source than income.

As a group, seniors will do very well under the FairTax. Low-income seniors will be much better off under the FairTax than under the current income tax system. Seniors, like everyone else, will receive a monthly rebate, in advance of purchases, for taxes paid on the cost of necessities. There will be no more income tax on Social Security. There will be no more income tax on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. Seniors who own existing homes stand to experience large capital gains due to the repeal of the income tax and implementation of the FairTax plan.

Prices at the cash register will go down under the FairTax (including the cost of prescription drugs!). The price of every good or service we buy today is inflated by the cost of income and payroll taxes paid by workers and businesses. These costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. When income and payroll taxes are repealed, prices will come down 20 to 30 percent according to Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Harvard University Economics Department. Therefore senior citizens, like all Americans, will be able to buy more.

Government benefits, Social Security and Medicare funding will be ensured, tax deferred investments will now be tax-free, and savings, invested in stock, real estate, and some bonds will increase substantially in value. Most importantly, the FairTax will create wealth for all Americans providing tax-free dollars for tax-free savings, and for retirement, and thus providing money for future prescription drugs and nursing care.

 

 

[Remedy]

The greatest threat to our freedom is an IRS that seeks to know how much we make, where we make it and when we make it. Details of our personal lives the government shouldn't even know to begin with,

Abloishing the IRS will diminish some objection to Securing Freedom And The Nation: Collecting Intelligence Under The Law (Congressional Testimony)

 

Californians for the FairTax - FairTax Facts Bringing the FairTax to a vote in both houses requires only 32 votes! If 11 members of the Senate Finance Committee and 21 members of the House Ways and Means Committee support the FairTax, they can bring the FairTax bill out of their respective committees and to the floor of the House and Senate. At that point, it would be Leadership's decision whether to bring it up for a vote of the full membership.

The Senate Finance Committee has 20 members and the House Ways and Means Committee has 40 members. We must work together to inform those 59 legislators, and to educate them about the many significant advantages of the FairTax. When we achieve this reasonable and modest goal, the FairTax will be well on its way to becoming a reality and the IRS a thing of the past.

Only consistent grassroots enthusiasm and pressure will ensure that these 60 key legislators, followed by the rest of congress, will address the FairTax. Congressmen rarely hear from large numbers of constituents on any one issue — and if there is one thing that Congressmen listen to, it is when their constituents speak in large numbers! We must be enthusiastic and consistent in contacting our representatives about the FairTax. Your letters, emails and phone calls will make a difference. Tell your elected leaders that the FairTax is an idea whose time has come.

 

 

[nobdysfool]

I would prefer gradual tax modification rather than sweeping reform all at once.

Better to deal with the devil you know, than the devil you don't know?...

[keyd]

"Total due for your $100.00 dollars worth of Chinese crap from Walmart:
$137.66

$137.66 minus 23% (gross payment tax)= $106.00

In the example given, your 23% sales tax is actually a 31.66% tax...37+% higher tax rate than promised. What else are they lying about?"

The above equation makes sense but leaves out the fact the the cost of goods will go down. If Wallmart sells a pair of Nikes for $100 today, they won't be selling those shoes for $100 (maybe $80) under a NRST. So in the end you wouldn't pay 137.66 but closer to what you pay today except taxes are included.

[Windcatcher]

That's the purpose of the rebate checks. Tax EVERYTHING, but every family gets a rebate check at the beginning of the month to cover living expenses (it's based on family size).

Simple.

[rolling_stone]

"In the example given, your 23% sales tax is actually a 31.66% tax...37+% higher tax rate than promised. What else are they lying about?"


First off their are two seperate bills introduce slighty different:

http://www.salestax.org/

Where do you get the notion that there is a tax on a tax? And second without all the other taxes, prices of goods and services will fall thus making 23% NRST apply to a lower figure. Somewhere between 25 and 33% of an employees pay goes to taxes, that is added to cost of goods sold and passed on to the consumer. Eliminate those taxes and prices can drop. I suggest you read up before you accuse people of lying....Two questions, do you spend all your income or save some? Do you pay more or less than 23% income tax? Remember you will be paying no tax on they money you save and don't spend. In addition there is a rebate for the floor amount of spending for necessities, which substantially reduces the NRST rate especially for lower income people. A single person would get a rebate of about $2000 making the first $8800 tax exempt......

http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/fca2.html

Other Bill:


http://www.house.gov/tauzin/nrst-faq.htm

Q: How can I afford anything if a sales tax is piled on top of the price of everything I buy?

A: With no income tax withholding, take home pay will increase substantially, offsetting the addition of the NRST.
With no business taxes hidden in the price of all goods and services, prices will go down -- again, offsetting the addition of the NRST.

Q: Why don't businesses have to pay taxes and pay their fair share?


A: Under any tax system -- income or consumption -- businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses only collect taxes for the government in the form of higher prices or lower wages. Business taxes and compliance costs are simply costs of doing business that are reflected in their bottom line.


Under any tax system, only consumers pay taxes. (Only consumers have no one else to whom they can pass the cost of the tax along.)


If businesses only collect taxes, and only consumers pay them, we should set up our tax system to reflect that economic reality.


By eliminating the business taxes and compliance costs hidden in the price of every good or service and exposing those burdens in a single, flat sales tax rate that consumers pay, the NRST creates the simplest and most economically efficient system yet proposed.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-302.html

http://www.salestax.org/

[Remedy]

Posted on 11/08/2001 10:10 PM EST by rwfromkansas

Dear FairTax Supporter,

Tax issues are simmering in D.C., and it's time to bring them to the boiling point.

[Willie Green]

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption,

The Founding Fathers preferred the import tariff over the excise tax as the least oppressive form of taxation.

Excerpted from: The First Federal Revenue Law

On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports,...

Congressman John Laurence of New York supported Madison's proposal, arguing that "the more simple a plan of revenue is, the easier it becomes understood and executed."/84/ Madison elaborated. A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade ("commercial shackles," he said, "are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic")

President Washington signed the bill into law on July 4th, 1789, making it the second federal law enacted under the Constitution (the first established the oaths of office for federal officials). The law was four pages long. Reflecting the basic compromise between Madison and Fitzsimons, it had two express purposes: one was "the support of government [and the] discharge of the debts of the United States," the other "the encouragement and protection of manufactures." To accomplish these purposes, the law established specific tariffs on 63 products and a flat five-percent tariff on all other products, except a few that were completely exempt.

---

In 1791 Alexander Hamilton released his Report on Manufactures, calling for protective tariffs to encourage fledgling industry. Federalists rejected the tariff idea at the time, worried about preserving a relatively open market for international trade. Such a protective tariff also stood to hurt Hamilton’s merchant allies, while restricting the influx of government revenue. The tariff was the only one of Hamilton’s major economic proposals to be rejected.

Nevertheless, Hamilton pushed Congress for a mild upward revision of the tariff schedules. Duties were not designed to exclude foreign goods as originally conceived in the Report on Manufactures, but as a means to generate revenue. In fact, between 1789 and 1816, Congress revised the tariff schedule over two dozen times. In this period, a broad consensus existed for utilizing the tariff to raise needed funds for various federal activities, and this remained its primary function for about three decades. Receipts from customs duties continued to rise steadily, ultimately providing about 90% of the national government’s income from 1790 to 1820,

Also at Hamilton's behest, Congress approved a Whiskey excise tax in January. Unlike the tariff, it constituted a direct tax on a specific class of producers ­ spirit distillers...
Designed to raise $800,000, the measure levied a tax on spirits ranging from 7 to 18 cents per gallon, and created an internal revenue service to collect it.
(It was the imposition of this first excise tax that led to The Whiskey Rebellion)

[lewislynn]

The above equation makes sense but leaves out the fact the the cost of goods will go down. If Wallmart sells a pair of Nikes for $100 today, they won't be selling those shoes for $100 (maybe $80) under a NRST

There's no guarantee of that, but I'll use the high cost of Nike's and their low cost of production for my example of proof. What will you use for yours?

Also I didn't specify anything but the tax on the dollar amount for whatever products you choose.

BTW you claimed a (maybe) 20% decrease but the tax would increase the cost a (maybe) minimum of 30%....

[lewislynn]

With no business taxes hidden in the price of all goods and services, prices will go down -- again, offsetting the addition of the NRST.

Services would be subject to the NEW sales "gross payment" tax. What part of a "service" (labor) cost would be reduced?

Everyone seems to parrot your line but where's the proof or even an example?...Will there be price controls?

[Trajan88]

I will explode with happy, happy, joy, joy if this passes.

Trajan88

[Windcatcher]

To quote another FReeper (I'd give credit if I knew to whom to give it):

"The collectivist, redistributionist heart of the Left will explode."

[MainFrame65]

"Maybe it will be our purchases (with a sales tax)(even if no one-to-one records are kept, there is a lot that can be deduced)."

Not true. The seller - of new goods only, by the way - has no record of the purchaser unless he uses a check or credit card, and there is no reason for that information to be passed on to the government. The records, the tax collection, and the payments to the government, less a small handling fee, are all handled by the seller. As the customer, I don't tell the government anything about me, which is just the way I want it.

If you want to minimize your taxes, buy everything you can used - but the relative prices of new and used goods will eventually adjust according to supply and demand. If you are rich, spend as you please, live in style, and support the government in the manner to which it has become accustomed. I'll know you have done your part by the car you drive, the clothes you wear, and the vacations you take - but not by name, ID number, dependents, employer, bank, broker, or income, unless YOU choose to tell me those things, for YOUR reasons.

[Copernicus]

If "income" were a "fictitious entity", you wouldn't be squawking like a masterbating monkey about it being taxed.

I have an official Free Republic "three strikes" and you get a "timeout" penalty in discussions with me for any conduct that is rude, discourteous or just plain silly.

Normally this remark would count as one strike, but since you can't spell any better than you can argue in your case this remark counts as two strikes.

One more and you and I will have no further discussion until you can demonstrate conduct appropriate to a civilized conversation.

If you have a point to make, make it with courtesy and (I would hope) some logic.

Many thanks.

Best regards,

[Samizdat]

The IRS is a state sponsored terrorist organization. If you don't believe that, talk to the innocent people who cringe in fear when they simply get a letter from the IRS. You got a better idea? Let's hear it.