Why did RP not co-sponsor this tax reform bill?

[kevinsfolder]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/show

Sounds pretty close to what he was talking about during the campaign. Why is his name not on the list of co-sponsors?

[JordanL]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/show

Sounds pretty close to what he was talking about during the campaign. Why is his name not on the list of co-sponsors?

The Fair Tax act is a sales tax, and while it's not exactly contrary to the ideals that RP espouses, it enables and promotes continued spending and taxation levels that should not be sustained.

Ron Paul wants to reduce taxes and expenditures so that less of both are "necessary".

[pcosmar]

The "Fair Tax" is not really a fair tax. That is just the name given to sell it.
Ron Paul said he might support something like it, but that it was not what he was trying to do. There may also been things written into this one that he could not back.

[JordanL]

The "Fair Tax" is not really a fair tax. That is just the name given to sell it.
Ron Paul said he might support something like it, but that it was not what he was trying to do. There may also been things written into this one that he could not back.

Actually, as far as taxes go, I challenge you to provide a more fair tax than the "fair tax". It's essentially a "usage tax" on the economy itself, which is about as fair as it can possibly get.

[pcosmar]

Actually, as far as taxes go, I challenge you to provide a more fair tax than the "fair tax". It's essentially a "usage tax" on the economy itself, which is about as fair as it can possibly get.

I will admit that I have only looked into it a little. my view is that government should be drasticly cut first, and then only tax as little as absolutely necessary. Without that as a first step we are going to bear and ever heavier burden.
My second thought is that it is proposed by Mike Huckabee. That should be warning enough. If unscrupulous politicians want it, it can't be good.

And third , In the reading I have done on the subject it seems that it would impact and harm the lower income levels most, and place a burden on small upstart buisness that large corporations could absorb.
some thoughts here.
http://www.libertariantv.com/articles/Unfair-Tax.asp

there are a few sites with varying points. there is nothing Fair about it.

[cordscords]

Well RP has said that he is against the FairTax and would ideally like a repeal of the 16th amendment. However he is on record of saying that he would support any bill that would lower the burden on taxpayers. FairTax isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we have now.

But just because he supports some of these bills doesn't mean it's the best route we should be taking which is why he cant throw 100% of his support behind it and become a co-sponsor. If given a chance to vote on it, my guess is he would then show his support.

[Captain Bryan]

Well RP has said that he is against the FairTax and would ideally like a repeal of the 16th amendment. However he is on record of saying that he would support any bill that would lower the burden on taxpayers. FairTax isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we have now.

But just because he supports some of these bills doesn't mean it's the best route we should be taking which is why he cant throw 100% of his support behind it and become a co-sponsor. If given a chance to vote on it, my guess is he would then show his support.

I agree.
I'd love to see something better than FairTax someday, but I think FairTax is our best shot right now.
I hope it passes.

[Danke]

Good comment from DailyPaul:


There is a fatal flaw in the Fair Tax idea

On February 6th, 2009 webpilot says:

I read the book and it makes sense and is probably better than the income tax system that we have now. But I don't believe it will ever pass. The authors of the book make one very foundational and incorrect statement that blows their whole idea out of the water. They state that the 16th Amendment gives the government the authority to tax as much of our income as they want - all the way up to 100%.

The USSC has said on several occasions that the 16th Amendment did not give the government "any new powers of taxation." In other words, if they couldn't tax it before the 16th Am, they can't tax it now. Put aside the question of whether the 16th Am. was even properly ratified. The IRS claims to get its authority to tax from that amendment.

The Constitution requires apportionment of any direct taxes. A direct tax includes any tax that you cannot reasonably avoid (like a sales tax on everything, for instance). The income tax laws are written very precisely to ensure that most Americans are not subject to its provisions. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional. Of course, it's also written to make it appear that every American is subject to its provisions. The whole thing is a fraud in its application, but it cannot be declared unconstitutional (because it's not, at least according to the black letter of the law).

Here's the kicker. A tax on everything is a direct tax, and it would not be apportioned. THE FAIR TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is what the Fair Tax proponents either do not understand or do not want to acknowledge. If passed, somebody would take it to court and there is too high a chance that the government would get caught with its pants down and that the legislation would be declared unconstitutional. Right now they have a system that works - a system that is technically Constitutional due to its limited scope, but in practice engulfs just about every citizen and compels us all to pay taxes out of fear or ignorance by misapplication of the tax code. I don't think they will allow a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation like this to emerge.

[Xenophage]

Actually, as far as taxes go, I challenge you to provide a more fair tax than the "fair tax". It's essentially a "usage tax" on the economy itself, which is about as fair as it can possibly get.

A "user fee" implies a service rendered that you are paying for. "The Economy" is not a service rendered by government. The fair tax is an "economic activity tax."

[JordanL]

A "user fee" implies a service rendered that you are paying for. "The Economy" is not a service rendered by government. The fair tax is an "economic activity tax."

No, it is an "economic consumption tax". The difference is that it punishes the consumption of resources, not the production of them. Right now production of resources is what is taxed (income), and consumption is not. Which is a MAJOR reason that we have a consumption hungry society...

And yes, the Fair tax would likely be challenged as unconstitutional, but it's likely that the resulting Constitutional Amendment to pass the fair tax would abolish the 16th amendment, as removing the IRS and income tax are core components of the Fair tax.

(And Huckabee didn't come up with the Fair tax, Libertarians did... Huckabee saw a populist cause and pounced...)

EDIT:

And for the record, my position is that for the taxes we have, a "Fair Tax" is the proper way to collect them. However we should strive to cut spending and programs a great deal as well... supporting the Fair Tax does not mean you support continued government growth.

Realistically, we are never going to see a bill which simultaneously makes big cuts in taxes and government. Our politicians will plunge our society into civil war first, and it's naive to hold out for the "all in one" bill that accomplishes all of our goals.

This one gets rid of witholding, the IRS, the income tax, corporate taxes, the death tax, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, etc... this is a good first step.

[pcosmar]

There was a Fair Tax proposed a few years back, but it never got any traction.
A flat rate. across the board, all income levels. NO deductions. A straight % on everyone.
even set at a low level that would not overly burden the poor would make enough from the High level and Corporations once deductions were eliminated.
It was Killed dead. They have no interest in fair tax.

[Anti Federalist]

Unless a "Fair Tax" was totally flat and fixed, with no deductions or brackets, which no proposal I have seen is not free from these things, I want no part of it.

And it has nothing to do with the tax itself.

It has to do with the fact that every purchase you make under such a plan would have to be monitored for tax compliance. Given how much the government interferes and "socially engineers" through the income tax code, this would give an unprecedented amount of regulatory control over your life.

[JordanL]

Unless a "Fair Tax" was totally flat and fixed, with no deductions or brackets, which no proposal I have seen is not free from these things, I want no part of it.

And it has nothing to do with the tax itself.

It has to do with the fact that every purchase you make under such a plan would have to be monitored for tax compliance. Given how much the government interferes and "socially engineers" through the income tax code, this would give an unprecedented amount of regulatory control over your life.

How can it have brackets? It's a sales tax!

Do you have to carry around a card with your annual income on it?

[Anti Federalist]

How can it have brackets? It's a sales tax!

Do you have to carry around a card with your annual income on it?

Brackets that exclude certain items from the tax or reduce the tax for lower incomes, were in one permutation of this proposal.

Yes, you would have to swipe your REAL ID card on every purchase to confirm what your bracket is in order to be charged the "correct" amount of tax.

[JordanL]

Brackets that exclude certain items from the tax or reduce the tax for lower incomes, were in one permutation of this proposal.

Yes, you would have to swipe your REAL ID card on every purchase to confirm what your bracket is in order to be charged the "correct" amount of tax.

No, the current bill taxes ALL sales equally, including food.

Then the government is supposed to send a "pre-bate" check for the taxes on the basic necessities to life. (In other words, the taxes on the minimum food needed to live are paid for every month via a pre-bate check. Any food, or higher quality food, that you wish to purchase, you pay more taxes on.)

And everyone receives this pre-bate, no matter your income. The idea is that you're not taxed on consuming what you must to survive.

[pcosmar]

No, the current bill taxes ALL sales equally, including food.

Then the government is supposed to send a "pre-bate" check for the taxes on the basic necessities to life. (In other words, the taxes on the minimum food needed to live are paid for every month via a pre-bate check. Any food, or higher quality food, that you wish to purchase, you pay more taxes on.)

And everyone receives this pre-bate, no matter your income. The idea is that you're not taxed on consuming what you must to survive.

Say what??:eek:
Who decides that? on what criteria?

Fuck that:mad:

[Feenix566]

I support the Fair Tax. It won't solve all of our problems, but it's a step in the right direction.

Once we switch to a sales tax, people will see how much money the government is taking from them. Then they'll start to wonder if it's worth it. Right now, nobody ever sees the money, so they don't know or care how much the government costs.

[Danke]

I support the Fair Tax. It won't solve all of our problems, but it's a step in the right direction.

Once we switch to a sales tax, people will see how much money the government is taking from them. Then they'll start to wonder if it's worth it. Right now, nobody ever sees the money, so they don't know or care how much the government costs.

I'd like to see how the Constitutional Amendment is worded. Because it will have to eliminate the apportionment requirement, and allow the first direct tax not administered by the States. Could be a very dangerous precedent.

[Xenophage]

No, it is an "economic consumption tax". The difference is that it punishes the consumption of resources, not the production of them. Right now production of resources is what is taxed (income), and consumption is not. Which is a MAJOR reason that we have a consumption hungry society...

And yes, the Fair tax would likely be challenged as unconstitutional, but it's likely that the resulting Constitutional Amendment to pass the fair tax would abolish the 16th amendment, as removing the IRS and income tax are core components of the Fair tax.

(And Huckabee didn't come up with the Fair tax, Libertarians did... Huckabee saw a populist cause and pounced...)

EDIT:

And for the record, my position is that for the taxes we have, a "Fair Tax" is the proper way to collect them. However we should strive to cut spending and programs a great deal as well... supporting the Fair Tax does not mean you support continued government growth.

Realistically, we are never going to see a bill which simultaneously makes big cuts in taxes and government. Our politicians will plunge our society into civil war first, and it's naive to hold out for the "all in one" bill that accomplishes all of our goals.

This one gets rid of witholding, the IRS, the income tax, corporate taxes, the death tax, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, etc... this is a good first step.

Production by itself is not economic activity. Economics is defined by TRADE. Production is the root of economic activity because it creates new VALUE to be traded.

A tax on consumption is no different than a tax on all economic activity in general. If you produce something but never sell it then you haven't actually engaged in economic activity.

As far as repealing other taxes, I'm very much in favor of that. In fact, I'm in favor of repealing all taxes. I'm also in favor of firing 99% of the government. I'm not in favor of the so-called "Fair Tax."