Remove all state and federal income taxes and eliminate all tax exempt statuses and replace with a flat 5% federal sales tax and a flat 3% state sales tax for entirety of the USA and place a expiration date no changes for 150 years.
22 Likes
This is great and we should add Property Tax. If we pay propety tax, we are really only renting out homes,
7 Likes
Well we already pay one of the highest property taxes in the country That may work but if set a 10% federal sales tax and a 5 % state tax that should cover all tax requirements and therefore eliminate property tax altogether and bring enough revenue in for government.
1 Like
Very well included, Regina. Propery taxes are extortion, criminal, and unconstitutional. And the county governments are hoping that the American People will not call them out on the carpet and show them the undeniable words of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which clearly states that" The right of the People to be secure in their houses, against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated." They are hoping that we do not have the spine to stand up and push back on them, because of the money and political kickbacks that they make off of the annual crime. They are only doing it over and over again because we never STOPPED them. Once we get angry enough, they will concede, hang their head down, and say “Yes’sir; Yes’man” And that will be the end of it. The Beast will die. 
7 Likes
If you are aware of how much money was stolen from all of us over generations, then you would understand that taxes are completely unnecessary. Our tax dollars all ended up at the Vatican via the Crown (London). They found $Quadrillions of gold bars underneath the Vatican (all the money they stole from the People) and it took 650 cargo plane loads to transport it back to where it belonged - to the various nations I presume but it is in undisclosed locations for security reasons. And now DOGE is finding billions (by the time they’re done). With all this money being recovered, they don’t need us to pay taxes! Govt’s need to be devolved anyway (which thankfully has started) but once they are reduced to absolute necessary size for most efficient performance, they won’t need us to pay them to operate! There’s plenty already there. And NO expiration date on this either. The People need to become free of all financial slavery once and for all.
3 Likes
I think too many decent people are niave and puddin’ headed about this. A thief is not going to self reform unless they are forced to and are punished out of the option. This level of government grand larceny and imbezzlement, laundering is precisely because they don’t fear the people, the law, or anyone in government, or punishment. These ngo’s were specifically co opted, and created to circumnavigate any obligation to accountability. There’s many reps in seats right now that were more than happy to participate IN the theft, WASTE, or look the other way.
It’s not enough that the theft is stopped. It’s not enough that restitution is made, if that’s even possible. It’s not enough that resignations are tendered. It’s not enough that the criminals are fired from their jobs. Charges need to be brought, and arrests made.
2 Likes
And what about city sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, and the list goes on and on.
1 Like
The flat federal sales tax and flat state sales tax would be enough to run the government all other taxes would be gone. BUT with this people will have to rely on themselves to survive. There would be no more subsidies to to any group ie oil companies farmers, insurance companies (this would NOT ELIMINATE MEDICARE) pharmaceutical companies and no more federally funded medical research, no more welfare no EBT no free or reduced utilities no food stamps no WIC no SNAP, ETC… however this plan would keep social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, and a fully functioning MILITARY. But in order for it to work Senetors and Congressmen’s salaries would be equal to the median income of the state the represent ( if they wanna make more money, then they need to increase commerce in their state and raise the median income) and they would have one 4 year term limit period, then they are out And all of their federal benefits would end as of their last day in office. But that part would have to be a completely separate bill. Basically, the idea of having a flat federal sales tax and a flat state sales tax would take it back to old school before all of the social welfare that was out there however we would be able to keep Social Security Medicare and our military and then the American people will have to stand on their own 2 feet And it will make it equal for every citizen of the . By having these flat federal and state sales taxes, it won’t matter how much money you make each year because all of the income coming in to support the government would come from the people buying things so example if I go buy a house for $10,000 I would pay sales tax on that $10,000. Is somebody making $1 million a year goes and buys a house for $300,000 they’re paying the 10% federal sales tax and the 5% state sales tax just like I would be paying on my $10,000 house. It all comes down to how much money you’re gonna spend and it makes it all equal. There are no separate tax brackets. There are no more write offs. there would be no more refunds or no more paying in no more childcare credits, etc. because there would be no income tax. It would all be on sales tax such as the food you buy the items you buy the property you buy the vehicles you buy. it would be a single tax system rather than double taxation because right now that’s what we have is a double and triple taxation system where you have to pay tax on the money you earn, and then you have to pay tax on the money you spend, and that is unconstitutional having a single tax system would be constitutional. They just wouldn’t be any room for freeloaders.
1 Like
That is a really good plan.
1 Like
The sales tax, flat tax, consumer tax, whatever you want to call it. While it’s MORE fair than what we have now. There’s a reason it’s been shot down since the 80’s/ 90’s. This has been floated in almost every republican primary race I can remember.
It never happens. Because IT WOULD put taxation in power of the people. And the economy and country would become isolationist and government would have to be far more transparent and responsible and would likely have to rely and recruit volunteers to get projects done that they now can simply bill the American people for. And can retain sweetheart deals with contractors on retainer that may or may not be expensive, or union run, and can pretty much write themselves fat checks. Cronie capitalists in the 90’s and now didn’t and don’t want that! No one wants to tighten their belts, no one wants their budget slashed, or even reviewed or scrutinized. We have moved too far away from a robust innovative entrepreneurial private sector, to individuals and companies trying to land government jobs and contracts, and calling that free enterprise. It’s not free, somebody has to carry the vision, and what’s not obvious to the common man is government has no vision. Governments goal is to fund this or that vanity project and to secure and entrench itself as the catalyst for anything getting done.
Look around at your community leaders. Have they started and run successful businesses before their time in their position? Are they there to occupy a position to keep liberal spenders out, or are they there to facilitate and approve more and more spending? Look around at how many young people that are pursuing worthless credentials and degrees rather than experience and real service that are vying for “community leadership” membership groups and roles, that have zero experience doing ANYTHING in life. You should be alarmed. These empty suits want to be famous. They want to be your next mayor, treasurer, chamber of commerce puke. Remember, boomers were taught/brainwashed and then taught everyone else that “Greed was GOOD!” This extremely backwards and flawed philosophy paved the way for the widespread corruption we have today. It’s very short sighted. When long term thinking is something the right is supposed to be good at. Now both sides seem to lack long term thinking, and what is missing overall is RESPONSIBILITY.
So the facade of capitalism, for all of it’s positives, is endless growth from their standpoint, they can’t discuss the lie of endless growth, they just prop it up, shuffle money around at the top to keep the dream going. Endless growth is a ponzi scheme. In 2008 the wheels came off in an obvious way. And they will continue to come off with increasing frequency. Endless growth is a LIE, and they cannot be honest about it, because there’s still profit to be made in rearranging deck chairs before the ship sinks.
Those that understand responsibility for the country, and conduct themselves according to duty, and grasp global geo politics don’t want to be dependant on consumer spending whims to fund the military.
So somehow the national defense can’t be downsized or dependant on consumerism.
That said. The rest of the system is now desperate to maintain the lie of endless growth, “free markets”, and never ever allow for deflation, only “Market corrections”. It’s ponzi schemes propping up ponzi schemes, spinning plates, plugging holes and cracks in dams, getting in and getting out before crashes and collapse. What’s better than risking THEIR money on ponzi? Using OUR money on ponzi!
Flat taxes is half baked, an error in thinking it solves any roots of problems. It could solve a lot of problems in theory, but it’s not going to solve for parasitism if there’s not transparency or threat of a true independant anonymous third party doge like audit.
How do you prevent a 3% flat tax from being increased to a 4%, then 5%, then 6%?
The way to preserve and protect the middle class, which is what I think you are attempting, is to protect and incentivise producers, and the responsible, in the middle class, AND above. To prevent and PUNISH parasitism at all strata.
You haven’t mentioned identifying thefts and wastes, or punishing them. If that is not a feature of your plan, NO PLAN will succeed. Good luck getting crooks to agree to your terms.
Have you done any research on this at all? How did you come up with 3%? I really don’t think you realize the unintended consequences such a tax would have. Would your proposal include repealing the 16th amendment? If not, it’s possible we would eventually have both the federal income tax and your 3% flat tax. The 16th amendment gives congress the authority to tax us.
There’s already a well thought-out tax system that could replace the federal income tax, and it would repeal the 16th amendment as well. It’s called the Fair Tax. It still pays for government (that’s the purpose of the federal income tax by the way). The Fair Tax (FT) absolutely gives taxation power back to us. The FT is an inclusive tax that we wouldn’t even see on new items which is very similar to the VAT charged in England and other parts of world.
Only new products and services would be charged the FT once, at the retail point of sale. So, business to business taxation is eliminated which would eventually reduce the cost of those items and services. So, if you want to buy a new TV, you could buy new and pay the included FT or you could be a used one and not be taxed.
The FT would eliminate filing every year because it applies to all new goods and services. April 15th would be just another spring day. Think about this, criminals would pay the FT on their new yachts and private jets so the tax base would expand considerably.
Visitors to our county would pay the FT just like we pay the VAT in England. This further expands the tax base.
It’s easy to say “Remove all tax,” but there’s a lot more to it than just wanting something to go away. What about people who live below the poverty line? You offer no exemption for them?
Please take a long look at the FT and see what you think. I believe it’s the best option for our country. Thank you for reading my response.
2 Likes
I don’t know where you read 3% my suggestion was a flat 10% federal sales tax and a flat 5%state sales tax and eliminate all other taxes which yes would require reversing the 16th amendment. AND as I stated in an additional post to another’s comment would also require getting rid of ALL welfare systems with exception of keeping social security Medicare and veteran benefits, also would require making changes to our senators and representatives pay (they only get paid the median income of the state they work for, NO traveling expenses paid to them they can attend all sessions and vote via zoom,set a term limit and they are done, and when they leave office they are done no continual pay no continual benefits). Would also eliminate subsidies i.e oil companies pharmaceutical companies insurance companies farmers etc not to mention would in turn eliminate departments in government such as the IRS, parts of DHS, parts of USDA and more
No my idea does not make an exception for the people below poverty as there would be no free handouts no living off the government everyone would have to work (disabled are covered under SOCIAL SECURITY)
Is there a full proof plan no is it a plan that would require some tweaking of terms and definitions yes the point is AMERICA broke from England because of taxation without representation and look at us now. Its shameful and a disgrace the double taxation and the discriminatory tax laws making lifetime politicians part of the top 1%
I will look more thoroughly at the fair tax and will respond with my thoughts at a later date
As I believe we are in agreement we need to turn power back to the people and redefine governmental authority and make the government employees of the people it dictators of the people
1 Like
Saving space by removing post against Fair Tax – now in favor of HR25 Fair Tax, via Mark’s posts (full exchange can be seen below). Thanks.
MH - Hello Susan, I wrote my responses inline. I put my initials in front of my comments so you can see them more easily.
There are a few concerns I have about the “Fair Tax” (HR 25). Although it would end all current taxes (but not address property taxes at the state level), I am not comfortable about how the proposed rate is suggested in the bill. It states that after the first year of implementation, this rate is automatically adjusted annually using a predefined formula reflecting actual federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.
MH - I would like to keep the scope of this conversation to one subject, the federal income tax. Property taxes, as you stated, are a state issue. I really wish congress would adopt that same philosophy of writing a bill for a single issue. Of course, I think the president should have line-item veto authority as well, but I digress.
MH - I understand your concern about the FT rate rising. What is the current fed. tax system formula for calculating the progressive rates? I don’t believe there is any formula. It’s all dependent on the whims of congress. At least the FT has a formula based on a real and, I think, reasonable measurement.
Mark, as a proponent of the Fair Tax, can you elaborate on how this works? Is it saying that, if the government keeps spending more money, and we have a shortfall, that the first year of national sales tax would average about 30%, but would then float upward every year after that, essentially chasing the runaway spending by Congress, so in 10 years, we could be looking at 40% or 50% national sales tax? If so, this is a horrible plan because it starts out the same way the income tax did, and then climbed higher and higher over time. Can you dispell this concern?
MH - Could congress spend more, absolutely! Remember though that currently, they are taxing our income, so there’s really no limit and no downside for them other than long memories at the ballot box. But then you consider that roughly only 25% of Americans vote and that downside doesn’t scare them as much. I attached a file depicting the history of the federal income tax rates. I understand that our government had to pay for the war effort, but 92% and 94% for the top two tax rates. That’s ridiculous. I cannot even imagine that, but it happened.
MH - The FT was written to be a “Revenue Neutral” consumption tax. Whatever congress does, their efforts are diminished greatly because the FT would tax consumption, not income. That changes everything. It would give the people more choice then they have now.
MH - Here’s a hypothetical example: If the rate climbs too high, I would reduce my consumption of new goods and services to stay within my budget. If everyone did the same because congress increased the FT rate, there would be consequences. The economy would take a hit. Consumer spending would drop, and no administration likes to “own” that. I think that’s the stabilizer build in to the FT. Okay, let me put a finer point on consumer spending. CS would switch over to used goods as well as people choosing not to purchase some items as quickly as they once did with a lower FT rate. Yes, CS going down is not good for any administration, but behind the scenes, it’s even worse for congress and the administration.
MH - Besides CS going down, in that scenario, the FT revenue would decrease even more. That’s the greatest build in stabilizer there is. By raising the FT rate it’s certain that FT revenue will decrease. Can they “print” more money? Of course, but they can do that now and have done so. The FT can’t correct bad behavior, but I believe it would be a monumentally better federal tax system than what we have now.
MH - Also don’t forget that the FT would automatically expand the tax base. Right now, the income tax only applies to taxpayers, but the FT would apply to everyone who buys new items. Consider criminals worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and no paycheck. They’re exempted from the current system because there’s no income (from a paycheck) to tax. They would also be exempted from any flat tax. But when they buy a new yacht or private jet, they would pay the FT.
MH - Visitors to our country would pay the FT. The US tax base would immediately expand exponentially overnight – from a child buying a pack of baseball cards, to a drug kingpin buying a private jet, to a nun from Brussels who loves silver and turquoise jewelry from a shop in New Mexico she visits on vacation. I don’t know how much the tax base would expand, but it’s a lot more than 100%.
Also, another thing in the bill is the idea that the 16th Amendment would not be addressed (which is essentially giving permission to tax the American People with the current system of taxation, for SEVEN YEARS more, before the 16th Amendment is striken from our Constitution. Why are we not addressing our current constitutional issues with taxation RIGHT NOW, vs. waiting for SEVEN YEARS to address it? Sounds like kicking the can down the road instead of trying to really address taxation now. Seems like bills meant to rob liberties from the American People (see: Patriot Act) start up immediately but have no sunset clause to them for when to phase it out; yet bills that aim to help the American People by stopping taxes, must have a sunset clause many years down the road before it kicks in. How will the American People deal with two tax systems in place for seven years until the other is phased out? Is the Fair Tax also “phased in” over this seven year duration as well? Can you add to this?
MH - Yes, I can. Without repealing the 16th amendment when the FT would be implemented takes me out of the proponent column. I would not be an advocate of the FT without the simultaneous repeal in place. When it first came out there was no provision for repealing 16. Then the repeal was added, and I became an advocate. Perhaps more revisions have happened since then. Congress has always used the fed income tax to reward their allies and punish their adversaries. It appears to me, if what you cited is the current bill, that congress doesn’t want to give up that control.
And also, it appears that the tax will be imbedded in the price and will not show at the register. This is concerning because the tax becomes hidden from us and we cannot distiguish if the product mfg costs are going up, or Congress is playing around with USAID again. How would we know whether or not we are slowly getting squeezed by increased taxes vs. product mfg costs when we purchase items?
MH -This doesn’t bother me as long as the FT rate is well published. Remember, business to business (B2B) tax would be eliminated. The cost of all the distribution systems of new goods would be reduced. Businesses would be cautious in the beginning, but eventually, the first retailers to pass some or all the distribution system cost savings to the customer to offset the FT would see their sales jump. Eventually, all businesses would follow suit.
As it stands now, a “Flat Tax” for new items + tariffs from other nations to do business in America, seem to be by far, the best plan. This “Fair Tax (HR25)” from Congress comes from the same Congress who did nothing to help the American People in over half a century. I don’t have much faith in solutions that they offer, and my natural instict is to be against anything they create - Fair Tax included. They have a long history of being, not only “unfair” but also “unfit for office”. The title that they use for their proposed tax (fair tax) is almost a mockery of their own political bodies. We should trash anything that comes out of Congress until it is cleaned out of corruption. The FLAT TAX + Tariffs is the way to go, and the “fair tax” should be trashed. . My patriotic two cents.
MH - Susan, I understand your cynicism and I share it to a point, but a flat tax is still taxing income and that’s the problem for me because you are still allowing the congress that you don’t trust, full control. The FT would take a large part of that control away from congress and into the hands of we the people. The FT would tax our consumption, not our income. Imagine getting 100% of your paycheck every 2 weeks.
MH - Trash the FT if you want, but give me a system that taxes my consumption to pay for government, not my income. I don’t want a national sales tax either because it would apply to everything, not just new goods and services at the point of retail sale. The people should have a system that gives them more than 50% control of how much federal tax they pay. The FT does that.
All the best to you Susan,
Mark Hummel
US Patriot
Not nearly enough. It should be more like 25% and 5%. But both should be sending rebates, to US citizens only, equal to the taxes paid on essential expenses. Like Discount groceries for a month, basic clothing, basic transportation, and basic necessary consumer goods and services. About $5000 per citizen annually. But none to those here illegally or on a work visa.
Mark, my responses in italics…thanks.
MH - Hello Susan, I wrote my responses inline. I put my initials in front of my comments so you can see them more easily.
There are a few concerns I have about the “Fair Tax” (HR 25). Although it would end all current taxes (but not address property taxes at the state level), I am not comfortable about how the proposed rate is suggested in the bill. It states that after the first year of implementation, this rate is automatically adjusted annually using a predefined formula reflecting actual federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.
MH - I would like to keep the scope of this conversation to one subject, the federal income tax. Property taxes, as you stated, are a state issue. I really wish congress would adopt that same philosophy of writing a bill for a single issue. Of course, I think the president should have line-item veto authority as well, but I digress.
MH - I understand your concern about the FT rate rising. What is the current fed. tax system formula for calculating the progressive rates? I don’t believe there is any formula. It’s all dependent on the whims of congress. At least the FT has a formula based on a real and, I think, reasonable measurement.
SK – Moving from no formula to a formula doesn’t buy the American People any advantages, especially if said formula is a function of Congressional spending, don’t you agree? Without knowing the formula, but by knowing it is a function of spending, then I can be certain that, if politicians create more money out of thin air, then in the end, the American People need to pay for it when they go to the grocery store, where that additional spending cost is secretly hiding in a jar of jelly for example, in a 3% higher cost. And if I needed the jelly, I could not have the luxury of moving to a cheaper brand in order to avoid the increase costs, because according to the FT plan, ALL of the jelly would go up 3%, right? So I don’t have a means to avoid paying for Congressional spending increases without simply stopping the purchase of jelly.
Mark, as a proponent of the Fair Tax, can you elaborate on how this works? Is it saying that, if the government keeps spending more money, and we have a shortfall, that the first year of national sales tax would average about 30%, but would then float upward every year after that, essentially chasing the runaway spending by Congress, so in 10 years, we could be looking at 40% or 50% national sales tax? If so, this is a horrible plan because it starts out the same way the income tax did, and then climbed higher and higher over time. Can you dispell this concern?
MH - Could congress spend more, absolutely! Remember though that currently, they are taxing our income, so there’s really no limit and no downside for them other than long memories at the ballot box. But then you consider that roughly only 25% of Americans vote and that downside doesn’t scare them as much. I attached a file depicting the history of the federal income tax rates. I understand that our government had to pay for the war effort, but 92% and 94% for the top two tax rates. That’s ridiculous. I cannot even imagine that, but it happened.
SK – I see what you are saying, and of course we can use the argument that since Congress was content in collecting 30% of American’s paychecks when the Boomers were busting butt for their retirement years, and now the gravy train is running out to cover their wasteful spending, they are simply shifting the 30% of wealth confiscation over to the demand side of the equation (ie: the jelly jar purchase), instead of the supply side (ie: the earned income that was supposed to purchase the jelly jar), when it comes to tax revenue. And a good reason for the shift is because American’s are loosing employment income, hand over fist, and riding the unemployment rolls – not much tax revenue in that regard, right?
I do understand your comparison between our current federal taxing system and what you now explain about the FT, yet I try to dismiss the current tax system when looking at this new system because I don’t think it helps to move forward with a system agreeable to the American People. In other words, leaving a rotten system should not serve as a selling point for a hew system, whether it is better or not, comparatively speaking. The details of the new system should sell the new system – like knowing the formula and seeing that it is not merely a ploy to shift the tax burden from income to purchases. And when the majority of Congress votes to approve something that is not in the best interest of the American People, it is not like we can expect individual reps who participated in said vote to be help accountable at the ballot box. Perhaps the low voter turnout is more reflective of the Congressional approval rate as a whole, (and past experience that their votes don’t matter against a collection of pre-positioned and paid off reps), and less to do with how content the American People are with the current status quo. Likewise, I would dare to speculate that there was also very low moral and monarchical support right before the Queen stopped eating her cake, if you get my meaning. It wasn’t that the populous was OK with the current system. It was more that they lost faith in it, forgive the rambling.
Anyway, I should probably go pick apart HR25 and try to determine what the formula is and how Congress might use this new tax system to continue their pillaging of the American People, since I believe that we certainly don’t need a formula for THAT behavior, right? History does well to show us their true nature – and we should be suspect of every bill they “invent” on behalf of the People.
MH - The FT was written to be a “Revenue Neutral” consumption tax. Whatever congress does, their efforts are diminished greatly because the FT would tax consumption, not income. That changes everything. It would give the people more choice then they have now.
SK – Again, I try to look at this as an attempt to “start fresh” with govt revenue collection, rather than base it on being incrementally more acceptable than the current rotten system we now have. The rotten system should not be a selling point for the newly proposed system. We are dealing with the future, not the past. As such, we should focus on future concerns vs. past merits and failures. For example, how do we not know that tariffs on other countries would not completely cover government expenses once we trim the federal govt down by 50%+? Bringing up Trump Tariffs is absolutely spot on – it is not clouding the FT discussion at all. And to make a simple support example, here it is (without debating its realistic application): If the newly shrunk federal government pulls in 100% of its necessary funds to support itself, year over year, then why on earth would we be pushing for a FT anyway – this would be against the interests of the American People and simply give Congress more incentive to play secret USAID games with the additional revenue, right?
Anyway, you are saying that the FT would give them more than they have now. Personally, I think it would help me, since I would take advantage of my shopping in order to mitigate the new tax on my personal expenses. In that way, I do see your point and agree with you – it is better than what we had. Perhaps I should separate the idea of keeping our Congress at bay from raising wasteful spending, with the newly proposed tax system, since I seriously doubt that Congress (who is authoring the bill) will ever include wording in said legislation that would restrict themselves in any fashion, after the legislation is passed.
MH - Here’s a hypothetical example: If the rate climbs too high, I would reduce my consumption of new goods and services to stay within my budget. If everyone did the same because congress increased the FT rate, there would be consequences. The economy would take a hit. Consumer spending would drop, and no administration likes to “own” that. I think that’s the stabilizer build in to the FT. Okay, let me put a finer point on consumer spending. CS would switch over to used goods as well as people choosing not to purchase some items as quickly as they once did with a lower FT rate. Yes, CS going down is not good for any administration, but behind the scenes, it’s even worse for congress and the administration.
SK – I think your argument is correct, and well-exampled. Although the control on Congressional over-spending is not immediate (as might be set down in the FT legislation, prohibiting wasteful action, the controls kick in at a later time, via natural market forces that attempt to regulate themselves based on the inefficient/wasteful use of govt revenue. I agree with your example, because I would react in a similar fashion, moving to the purchasing of used items vs. new (I do that anyway) – even though it would be less applicable in monthly food costs for Americans because one normally doesn’t buy a jar of used jelly. Overall, your point is well made. While I might be looking at establishing direct controls on the front-end, via legislative restrictions, I might settle with indirect controls placed on govt officials via natural mkt forces. Agreed. Thx for the illustration.
MH - Besides CS going down, in that scenario, the FT revenue would decrease even more. That’s the greatest build in stabilizer there is. By raising the FT rate it’s certain that FT revenue will decrease. Can they “print” more money? Of course, but they can do that now and have done so. The FT can’t correct bad behavior, but I believe it would be a monumentally better federal tax system than what we have now.
SK – Agreed. It would serve to as a disincentive for printing more money for more projects when the consumer pulls back on the spending that funds the new system.
MH - Also don’t forget that the FT would automatically expand the tax base. Right now, the income tax only applies to taxpayers, but the FT would apply to everyone who buys new items. Consider criminals worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and no paycheck. They’re exempted from the current system because there’s no income (from a paycheck) to tax. They would also be exempted from any flat tax. But when they buy a new yacht or private jet, they would pay the FT.
SK – I see this advantage – thx.
MH - Visitors to our country would pay the FT. The US tax base would immediately expand exponentially overnight – from a child buying a pack of baseball cards, to a drug kingpin buying a private jet, to a nun from Brussels who loves silver and turquoise jewelry from a shop in New Mexico she visits on vacation. I don’t know how much the tax base would expand, but it’s a lot more than 100%.
SK – I also see this advantage – thx.
Also, another thing in the bill is the idea that the 16th Amendment would not be addressed (which is essentially giving permission to tax the American People with the current system of taxation, for SEVEN YEARS more, before the 16th Amendment is striken from our Constitution. Why are we not addressing our current constitutional issues with taxation RIGHT NOW, vs. waiting for SEVEN YEARS to address it? Sounds like kicking the can down the road instead of trying to really address taxation now. Seems like bills meant to rob liberties from the American People (see: Patriot Act) start up immediately but have no sunset clause to them for when to phase it out; yet bills that aim to help the American People by stopping taxes, must have a sunset clause many years down the road before it kicks in. How will the American People deal with two tax systems in place for seven years until the other is phased out? Is the Fair Tax also “phased in” over this seven year duration as well? Can you add to this?
MH - Yes, I can. Without repealing the 16th amendment when the FT would be implemented takes me out of the proponent column. I would not be an advocate of the FT without the simultaneous repeal in place. Good to hear – it only makes sense for the American People . When it first came out there was no provision for repealing 16. Then the repeal was added, and I became an advocate. Interesting to learn. Perhaps more revisions have happened since then. Congress has always used the fed income tax to reward their allies and punish their adversaries. It appears to me, if what you cited is the current bill, that congress doesn’t want to give up that control.
SK – Yes, which is why the American People have so little trust in their reps these days. At the end of the day, it is about their own control, even at the expense of the People.
And also, it appears that the tax will be imbedded in the price and will not show at the register. This is concerning because the tax becomes hidden from us and we cannot distiguish if the product mfg costs are going up, or Congress is playing around with USAID again. How would we know whether or not we are slowly getting squeezed by increased taxes vs. product mfg costs when we purchase items?
MH -This doesn’t bother me as long as the FT rate is well published. Remember, business to business (B2B) tax would be eliminated. The cost of all the distribution systems of new goods would be reduced. Businesses would be cautious in the beginning, but eventually, the first retailers to pass some or all the distribution system cost savings to the customer to offset the FT would see their sales jump. Eventually, all businesses would follow suit.
SK – Your prior examples of economic controls keeping Congress in check on rampant spending somewhat eleaviates my prior concerns on run-away prices based on run-away govt spending. And you add even further support by showing that the incremental taxes embedded all along the product supply chains would be removed, thereby reducing the final cumulative mfg product costs related to taxes on individual component parts – very nice observation showing further support of the FT.
As it stands now, a “Flat Tax” for new items + tariffs from other nations to do business in America, seem to be by far, the best plan. This “Fair Tax (HR25)” from Congress comes from the same Congress who did nothing to help the American People in over half a century. I don’t have much faith in solutions that they offer, and my natural instict is to be against anything they create - Fair Tax included. They have a long history of being, not only “unfair” but also “unfit for office”. The title that they use for their proposed tax (fair tax) is almost a mockery of their own political bodies. We should trash anything that comes out of Congress until it is cleaned out of corruption. The FLAT TAX + Tariffs is the way to go, and the “fair tax” should be trashed. . My patriotic two cents.
MH - Susan, I understand your cynicism and I share it to a point, but a flat tax is still taxing income and that’s the problem for me because you are still allowing the congress that you don’t trust, full control. The FT would take a large part of that control away from congress and into the hands of we the people. The FT would tax our consumption, not our income. Imagine getting 100% of your paycheck every 2 weeks.
SK – You have thoroughly made a compelling argument for the FT and I am now certainly supportive of it. I appreciate the time and effort that you put out in this regard. Hopefully, it may also help others who (like myself) was initially against the idea, for the reasons I previously stated.
MH - Trash the FT if you want, but give me a system that taxes my consumption to pay for government, not my income. I don’t want a national sales tax either because it would apply to everything, not just new goods and services at the point of retail sale. The people should have a system that gives them more than 50% control of how much federal tax they pay. The FT does that.
SK – You have a new supporter of the proposed HR25 “Fair Tax”. Again, I thank you for your time in this rewarding learning session. Take care and be well, Mark.
All the best to you Susan,
Mark Hummel
US Patriot
Can somebody explain to me how the criminal who buys a jet, who has to pay consumption tax and is therefore a net contributor to the tax base is a good thing? And likewise illegals here buying things and stuff, become contributors to the taxbase is desirable?
Wouldn’t we want MORE rich criminals doing business here, and MORE illegals then?
Is this how to MAGA? SMH.
I don’t think they should tax us on utilities, gasoline or food. I think it’s fine to tax us on products but not on necessities.