Freedom Caucus offers fraudulent tax reform, the alleged FairTax, H.R. 25

[johnwk]

.
SEE House Bill Would Reform Tax Code, Eliminate IRS

Saturday January 14, 2023

"Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., reintroduced a bill Monday that would replace the current federal tax structure with a national consumption tax and lead to the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service."

What Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., and Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., avoid telling their constituents is, the FairTax, which they are trying to shove down the throats of the American people . .

• creates an entirely new tax,
• creates two new tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau", in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting taxes.
• keeps Congress’ power to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from incomes alive,
• requires taxpayers to file Fair Tax returns twelve times a year,
• requires ordinary working people to register with government in order to sell the property each has in their own labor,
• requires ordinary people to become tax collectors for government.
• requires taxpayers to keep whatever records Congress may dream up,
• and creates a new entitlement, the Family Consumption Allowance [a monthly government check sent to every family in the U.S.] that would become another wedge issue used during election time to buy votes.

Why on earth would any “conservative” politician support this rope-a-dope proposal which enlarges and strengthens the federal government’s iron grip around the American people’s necks?

If Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., and Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., are really determined to offer meaningful federal tax reform, they would introduce the "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" which begins as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed, and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from sales, profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s original tax plan as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention they would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

JWK

When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people

[ClaytonB]

Ah, yes, the perennial "Fair" Tax. The only tax that Congress considers "fair" is 100% tax on all income and assets, to be paid to them, forthwith.

---

The only two things that are certain are Death and pic-taxes...

[johnwk]

Ah, yes, the perennial "Fair" Tax. The only tax that Congress considers "fair" is 100% tax on all income and assets, to be paid to them, forthwith.

---

The only two things that are certain . . .

I'm not sure how that contributes something productive to the thread, but . . . if you say so.

JWK

[johnwk]

.
Look at how reason makes crap up about the alleged FairTax, H.R.25.

“The bill would overhaul the nation’s entire tax code, scrapping all federal taxes in favor of the FairTax, a 23 percent national retail sales tax.”

That is just one of other falsehoods and/or misrepresentations in the article titled House Republicans Want a Vote On the FairTax. Is It Worth Supporting?


The truth is, H.R.25 would not scrap “… all federal taxes in favor of the FairTax, a 23 percent national retail sales tax.” Congress’ power to lay and collect imposts, duties and excise taxes remains and includes the power to lay and collect “excise” taxes calculated from profits and gains . . . see, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

The Corporation Tax, as imposed by Congress in the Tariff Act of 1909, is not a direct tax, but an excise; it does not fall within the apportionment clause of the Constitution, but is within, and complies with, the provision for uniformity throughout the United States; it is an excise on the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity,

Also keep in mind that the alleged FairTax creates two new tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau", in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting taxes.


Why are so many, so quick and determined to make crap up about the FairTax?


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

[ClaytonB]

I'm not sure how that contributes something productive to the thread, but . . . if you say so.

JWK

If we're not just being jerked around by the Neocons for the gazillionth time, I'll be more than happy to eat all my words and jokes on this. They don't make a skeptic-meter strong enough to measure my skepticism on this...

[johnwk]

If we're not just being jerked around by the Neocons for the gazillionth time, I'll be more than happy to eat all my words and jokes on this. They don't make a skeptic-meter strong enough to measure my skepticism on this...

One thing for certain is, the FairTax being promoted to close down the IRS while technically true, is disingenuous to say the least as H.R. 25, if adopted, creates two new tax collecting agencies in its place, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau", and that is in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting federal taxes. Additionally, the alleged FairTax does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes. The Fair Tax being promoted by Republican House members is a devious, and clever way to expand Congress' iron fisted taxing arm.

.

[ClaytonB]

One thing for certain is, the FairTax being promoted to close down the IRS while technically true, is disingenuous to say the least as H.R. 25, if adopted, creates two new tax collecting agencies in its place, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau", and that is in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting federal taxes. Additionally, the alleged FairTax does not withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes. The Fair Tax being promoted by Republican House members is a devious, and clever way to expand Congress' iron fisted taxing arm.

.

They've been pulling out this same canard for many decades. Last time was about 20 years ago, if I remember correctly. And they had done it multiple times before that. "We're the party that's going to abolish your taxes!" No, you're the party that's going to pretend to want to abolish our taxes, in order to get into power, and then buy votes with infinity-cash from the Fed once you get into power, just like the Dems do. CHANGE MY MIND...

[johnwk]

They've been pulling out this same canard for many decades. Last time was about 20 years ago, if I remember correctly. And they had done it multiple times before that. "We're the party that's going to abolish your taxes!" No, you're the party that's going to pretend to want to abolish our taxes, in order to get into power, and then buy votes with infinity-cash from the Fed once you get into power, just like the Dems do. CHANGE MY MIND...

I agree with that completely, and the proof in the pudding is, the Republican controlled House will not take up the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually end all taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages and all lawfully earned "incomes" and return us to our Constitution's original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.

JWK

[Snowball]

We could have an automatic transaction tax on financial transactions over a certain amount that would replace all income tax.

Think the "Club For Growth" would go for it? Of course, not.

[ClaytonB]

We could have an automatic transaction tax on financial transactions over a certain amount that would replace all income tax.

Think the "Club For Growth" would go for it? Of course, not.

Taxes that "target" specific assets or specific transactions are a waste of time/energy, and destructive. They necessarily create a black market that empowers crooks because they are operating tax-free, while the rest of us are being ground under the boot of government because we keep our assets/transactions on the books.

The founding fathers gave Congress the power to levy tariffs and that's what we should stick to. Whether import, export or a 50/50 balance is not that important, IMO, what's important is that Congress apply the tariffs only at the national border, and evenly across all goods, meaning, a fixed rate irrespective of the good itself. Congress must stop trying to play central-planner through duties and subsidies, it's destroying the economy. Each of the 50 states retains the power under the Constitution to institute virtually any sort of tax they want to have, in accordance with their own representative government. This allows the internal economy of the US to adjust itself to any form of taxation that works best, while not having to build and maintain a Federal financial-surveillance network, which is actually the oldest and most insidious form of mass surveillance...

[Pauls' Revere]

[Example} Excise Tax not to exceed 15% + Sales Tax not to exceed 15% = Total of combined taxes not to exceed more than 30% or combination thereof.

ALL other taxes and agencies abolished.

[acptulsa]

How about we abolish federal taxes altogether, and if they don't want to get together and argue about stuff for free, they can go home and get a damned job.

[WisconsinLiberty]

Would a national sales tax do anything to reduce that welfare state? To be enforced, would not every transaction need to be monitored by the federal government so that “all goods and services purchased for personal consumption” could be effectively taxed?

Bad as it is, it’s perhaps best to keep the present system in place and let the utopian idea of a flat tax die a natural death in the 118th Congress.

DOA: Fair Tax Act to Abolish the IRS Has Zero Chance of Passage

The New American
January 12, 2023

[johnwk]

Would a national sales tax do anything to reduce that welfare state?

Is that a trick question?

One of the major problems with the alleged FairTax is the "Family Consumption Allowance" SEC. 301. It only allows for a monthly rationed supply of tax-free articles, but more importantly, it creates another entitlement which will be used by our socialist politicians as a wedge issue to buy votes during elections.

.

[WisconsinLiberty]

Is that a trick question?

One of the major problems with the alleged FairTax is the "Family Consumption Allowance" SEC. 301. It only allows for a monthly rationed supply of tax-free articles, but more importantly, it creates another entitlement which will be used by our socialist politicians as a wedge issue to buy votes during elections.

.

It's a rhetorical question.

[johnwk]

It's a rhetorical question.

Well, I did answer the rhetorical question!

[Snowball]

Taxes that "target" specific assets or specific transactions are a waste of time/energy, and destructive. They necessarily create a black market that empowers crooks because they are operating tax-free, while the rest of us are being ground under the boot of government because we keep our assets/transactions on the books.

The founding fathers gave Congress the power to levy tariffs and that's what we should stick to. Whether import, export or a 50/50 balance is not that important, IMO, what's important is that Congress apply the tariffs only at the national border, and evenly across all goods, meaning, a fixed rate irrespective of the good itself. Congress must stop trying to play central-planner through duties and subsidies, it's destroying the economy. Each of the 50 states retains the power under the Constitution to institute virtually any sort of tax they want to have, in accordance with their own representative government. This allows the internal economy of the US to adjust itself to any form of taxation that works best, while not having to build and maintain a Federal financial-surveillance network, which is actually the oldest and most insidious form of mass surveillance...

I'm not talking about a sales tax. Or a transaction tax over the counters. I'm talking about a hard-wired trading and transaction tax of well under 1% that would automatically leech into the system via computer programs. It's been discussed for a long time but the lobbies don't want it. So, we get income tax and IRS instead, because they can wiggle around that.

Still, of course, there shouldn't be any tax. But, democracy demands it. So.... we suffer under it.

[johnwk]

I see Matt Gaetz is supporting a fraudulent Balanced Budget Amendment that would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.

H.J.Res.14 - Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

If Matt Gaetz, a FREEDOM CAUCUS MEMBER was sincere about encouraging Congress to balance the annual federal budget, he would be supporting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually require Congress to balance the annual budget.


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed, and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from sales, profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s original tax plan as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention they would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!


“SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year’s deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit.”


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”


In reference to the above Section see: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:


States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then everybody taxpayer across the United States pays the exact same amount!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


“SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State’s proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States’ cost of collection.”


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share of a direct tax in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.

_____

[Sonny Tufts]

t have previously explained that this so-called "balanced budget" amendment would do no such thing. Section 4 allows Congress to set a date in the future by which the States are to pay their shares of the direct tax, thereby allowing Congress to do what it always does -- kick the can down the road and end up with a deficit. Even if every state comes up with their share of the tax, the discount will obviously result in a deficit.

As a practical matter, however, it will nor be possible for all of the States to come up with their shares of the direct tax in the same fiscal year that Congress imposes it. Some legislatures don't meet annually, and it's a delusion to think that a State could decide how to raise its share of the tax and actually collect it in one year.

The Founders' original tax plan was to give Congress the discretion to determine when and what to tax. There were only three restrictions on the taxing power spelled out in the original Constitution: direct taxes must be apportioned, duties, imposts, and excises must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports. The Supreme Court has added a fourth: Congress can't tax certain functions of a state or local government (this is the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine that is based upon the federalism structure under the Constitution). That's it. Given that 6 of the original 13 colonies had had some form of income tax it's absurd to think that the taxing power given to Congress in the Constitution wasn't broad enough to cover income taxes.

Finally, the idea that the "original tax plan" didn't include the power to tax inheritances is nonsense, given that the first federal inheritance tax was imposed in 1797.

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ghlight=johnwk

[johnwk]

t have previously explained that this so-called "balanced budget" amendment would do no such thing. Section 4 allows Congress to set a date in the future by which the States are to pay their shares of the direct tax, thereby allowing Congress to do what it always does -- kick the can down the road and end up with a deficit.

I see you still make absurd arguments. The pending debt assigned to a state directly affects the State Governments credit rating. And if not addressed and resolved, would create devastating financial credit rating consequences for the State.

JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

I see you still make absurd arguments. The pending debt assigned to a state directly affects the State Governments credit rating. And if not addressed and resolved, would create devastating financial credit rating consequences for the State.

If this were true, then why should Congress have the discretion to vary the due date for the States to pay their shares? Why not just say that payment will be due by the end of the nation's fiscal year? You are also making the extremely dubious assumption that all state legislators will act rationally.

I note you failed to address the fact that if a sufficient number of States paid on time they would receive a discount, thereby resulting in a deficit.

[johnwk]

If this were true, then why should Congress have the discretion to vary the due date for the States to pay their shares? Why not just say that payment will be due by the end of the nation's fiscal year? You are also making the extremely dubious assumption that all state legislators will act rationally.

I note you failed to address the fact that if a sufficient number of States paid on time they would receive a discount, thereby resulting in a deficit.

If this and if that . . . you still love to make absurd comments in order to deflect and switch the subject.

.

[johnwk]

.
.
This seems to confirm our Republican Congress and Freedom Caucus members are very much part of the Washington Establishment’s never-ending push to enlarge and consolidate power in their hands.

See: Is GOP Freedom Caucus Pushing for a 30% Sales Tax in US?

My pet question goes unanswered:

Why on earth would any freedom loving, Republican member of Congress, support the rope-a-dope FairTax Act proposal which, if adopted, enlarges and strengthens the federal government’s iron fisted taxing grip around the American people’s necks?

JWK

When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

[johnwk]

.
.
I see the Republican Leadership in the House is still promoting a fraudulent and deceptive tax reform idea which would actually enlarge the federal government’s taxing authority. And our popular media is cleverly covering up what the FairTax scheme would actually do.

See: House GOP keeps up attacks on IRS with bill to abolish the agency

By Katie Lobosco, CNN, Mon January 23, 2023​

"The Republicans’ Fair Tax Act is not a new idea. A version was first introduced in Congress in 1999. It’s never had enough support to become law, but it puts forth an appealing message to those Americans who love to hate the federal tax agency.

It would get rid of the complicated federal tax system, doing away with the annual task of filing tax returns. Instead, the bill would replace federal taxes on individual and corporate income with a national 23% sales tax …"



Of course, Katie Lobosco of CNN misrepresents and does not report that the “FairTax” plan, if adopted, would increase the annual tax return filing to twelve frickin times a year!
Why do they continue to lie about the FairTax?[“CHAPTER 5, OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, SEC. 501. MONTHLY REPORTS AND PAYMENTS].

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel

[johnwk]

.
Once again, the “FairTax” is misrepresented. This time by Adam Hardy,​




Money.com, author of the following article:​


Here's How the Proposed National Sales Tax Would Work


Adam Hardy, author of the article, asserts:

"However, the act proposes much more than dismantling the IRS, and the framework has been around for decades. In its current iteration, the Fair Tax Act would get rid of every type of current federal tax — including payroll, self-employment, estate, death and corporate taxes — and replace them with a nationwide 23% retail tax that happens at the checkout counter for new goods and services."

The truth is, the FairTax does not “. . . get rid of every type of current federal tax — .”

For example, under the alleged FairTax, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, subtitle E (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes) is simply redesignated as subtitle C and will still be collected by the newly created “Excise Tax Bureau”, while the newly created “Sales Tax Bureau” will be collecting the new 23 percent tax on articles of consumption and upon “taxable property” which is also taxed under the alleged FairTax.

I know it takes time to dig through the weasel wording of the alleged FairTax Act, but those who report on it, should take the time to study it before making inaccurate statements concerning it.

Had Adam Hardy done his job and studied the Bill, he would have found “SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER FEDERAL TAXES”…

(a) IN GENERAL. — Section 7801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the authority of the Department of the Treasury) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(d) EXCISE TAX BUREAU. — There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“(e) SALES TAX BUREAU. — There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau."

As I previously pointed out, contrary to Adam Hardy’s assertion, the FairTax does not “. . . get rid of every type of current federal tax — .”​

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in-between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[johnwk]

.

See: The GOP’s Fair Tax Masochism

By The Editorial Board
Jan. 20, 2023

"The plan is called the Fair Tax and its premise is simple: Replace every existing federal tax with a new national tax on sales."

Seems that the nitwittery, or perhaps laziness by the WSJ’s Editorial Board, is a common characteristic of today’s popular media.

As documented HERE, the FAIRTAX ACT would not "Replace every existing federal tax with a new national tax on sales”, nor does the legislation remotely suggest it would. So why is this factually inaccurate representation constantly being asserted about the FairTax?


This same misrepresentation was constantly reported in the 1990s when the fair tax was introduced. And it was totally false then as it is now. So why has it been misrepresented all these years [about 25 years], and continues, to this very date, to be misrepresented by our mainstream media?


Something very suspicious seems to be afoot when our popular media act in concert and falsely report, for so many years, that the FairTax would "Replace every existing federal tax with a new national tax on sales."


JWK



“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel