1 vote

Ron Paul would NOT even Cosponsor "Fair Tax" Bill

The so called "Fair Tax" recently sparked my curiosity, when the alleged Libertarian Party of Florida candidate Alex Snitker oddly promoted this un-Libertarian "Fair Tax" on his campaign website.

Fair Tax legislation was originally introduced in Congress by Republican Representative John Linder (R-GA). http://tinyurl.com/FairTaxAct

Linder first sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" in the House claiming it was only 133 pages long, yet in the photo of Representative John Linder the "Fair Tax" document stack is almost as tall as him.
See photo: http://tinyurl.com/FairTaxActLinderPic.

It's also known as H.R.25
Title: Fair Tax Act of 2007
Sponsor: Rep Linder, John [GA-7]
(introduced 1/4/2007) with Cosponsors (72)

Linder's FairTax bill languishes in the House Committee on Ways and Means each time it is introduced, it has always had a number of cosponsors, – but not Ron Paul, the acknowledged taxpayers' best friend.


If the Fair Tax proposal was as friendly to taxpayers as its proponents say it is, I would expect Congressman Paul's name to be first on the list of co-sponsors, but it is not.

It's not just Libertarians who find that the Fair Tax is a fraud.

The pro-libertarian economics Ludwig von Mises Institute published an article titled The Fair Tax Fraud http://mises.org/daily/1814

The article points out that...

The Fair Tax is a fraud because it is based on the fallacy that government theft (taxation) should be done in a "fair" manner instead of eliminated altogether.

Fair Tax advocates claim that their plan would repeal of the 16th Amendment. However, all H.R. 25 does is repeal Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that relates to income taxes and self-employment taxes and Subtitle C that relates to payroll taxes and the withholding of income taxes. The only mention of the 16th Amendment in H.R. 25 is when it says: "Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed."

To repeal the 16th Amendment would require a constitutional amendment. Can Congress be relied on to pass a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th amendment after a national sales tax has already been enacted? And even if Congress passed a constitutional amendment, it would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the states. Without the repeal of the 16th Amendment, what is to prevent an income tax from being imposed again after a national sales tax has been enacted?

Even Congressman Ron Paul fears this could happen,
a National Sales + the Federal Income Tax

Although the Fair Tax would eliminate the filing of all individual tax returns, the Fair Tax turns every business into a tax collector. Every small service business and every Internet business that does not currently collect state sales taxes will have to collect taxes for the federal government. Every doctor will now have to charge sales tax on his services. Where will this end? Will the neighborhood boy who mows lawns have to begin collecting federal sales tax on each lawn mowed? Will the neighborhood girl who baby sits have to do likewise?

The national retail sales tax rate under the Fair Tax plan rate ranges from 23% up to 30% percent.

That is on top of state sales taxes that are currently collected by forty-five states.

That is on top of the sales tax that many cities and counties also collect.

That is on top of the special taxes that exist on hotel rooms in most areas of the country.

I suppose that a national retail sales tax would also apply to gasoline. There is no mention of the federal gas tax anywhere in the Fair Tax Act.

No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax.

Does this mean that there will be an additional 23 to 30% percent tax on each gallon of gasoline?

The "underground economy" that income tax advocates complain about will certainly increase under the Fair Tax system. Even if the highly dubious claim that there will be an "average producer price reduction of 22 percent for goods and services in just the first year after the adoption of the Fair Tax" is true, not having to pay a 23% to 30% percent tax on an item is a tremendous incentive to make a purchase in the "underground economy."

The claim that the IRS will be eliminated under the Fair Tax is bogus.

Although the national sales tax will be collected by the states from retailers, it is still a national sales tax, and as such, its collection will have to be overseen by some agency of the federal government. Just because the bureaucracy will no longer be called the IRS doesn't mean that it will be eliminated.

What is fair about allowing the government to confiscate 23-30% of the value of every new good and service?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

FairTax Restores Power to the People

Laurence Vance's points are rebutted, effectively, here: Comment: Can a Tax Be 'Fair'? Vance Part #1

Learn about the FairTax to correct misinformed perceptions illustrated profusely in the above article. Key-word search, on Facebook, at: FAST FAIRTAX RESEARCH

Don't Tax Me! Don't Tax Me!

Tax the man behind that tree. Every version of the "Fair Tax" I have ever had the displeasure to glance through offered only one thing: another way to tax. The dunderheads who support these lame brained ideas are simply not looking at reality. Spending by government is the problem. Rein that in and the method of taxation will not be of paramount importance. roll back federal spending to the level of 10 years ago and its is likely that a personal income tax would not be necessary at all and could be abolished.

I hate the fair tax. LOL no

I hate the fair tax. LOL no loopholes, no deductions..a whole new bureaucracy to refund some to poor people who could not buy the stuff to begin with because the tax was 23%..LOL (where they got that figure I will never know..) Businesses having to do MORE forms and accounting, for NOTHING or not enough to pay for the postage..COME ON.
It is about the dumbest thing I ever heard of.

They pulled it out of their butts. Really.

It is based on their assumption formed from a cocktail napkin math problem that they estimate the "embedded" taxes in everything amounts to 23%. (there is an inclusive/exclusive issue, but that isn't really important)

The kicker is their whole selling point is you get to keep more of what you earn. (no withholding at all)

So they claim this means you have more purchasing power of course, and will be better off.

Of course, they admit you won't be paid as much. Actually, your take home will NOT change. Employers will simply pay you less, and then cut prices accordingly because there will downward pressure on prices since labor costs aren't as high.

So they presume, you'll still say take home 20K on gross 30K, but you'll be able to buy MORE because everything will be 23% cheaper.

But then while you are watching the left hand, the right hand is taxing you BACK to the original old retail price. So that $5 value meal will now cost $3.85, but after taxes will still cost $5.

So there is NO net benefit to you.

All that has happened is now they take it at the register than before you get your check.

And once they have the power to tax a retail sale, they theoretically have no limit. They could tax it at ANY RATE they want. If they want to tax it at 75% they could.

And this is before we even get into the whole "welfare" scam that everyone will be on with the pre-bate.

These numbers remember, are not founded on anything more than cocktail napkin estimates.

It's just one big "shoot'n the bull" idea.

Republicae's picture

Dr. Paul is well aware of the

Dr. Paul is well aware of the unending hunger this government has for tax revenues and the idea that this government will be satisfied with between 23% and 30% as recommended by Fair Tax proponents will never be adhered to by Congress.

Dr. Paul also might be concerned with the fact that there is nothing in the proposed Fair Tax legislation that would or could prevent Congress from instituting any other type of tax in the future, including an income tax. Congress cannot pass legislation which can be considered unalterable by future Congresses, so there are no promises or safeguards in such legislation unless a Constitutional Amendment is ratified. In other words, Dr. Paul is well aware of the character of the government and of the propensity of government to break all bargains it has ever promised to keep.

Dr. Paul is also well aware that taxation, while necessary to a degree, is nothing more than a potential drug to the government addict, it will always want more and will always find someway to get more, it will still be a system of both coercion and confiscation by government edict. Even the idea that it is fair is questionable due to the possible loopholes proposed due to government identified poverty levels.

The first step is to bind this government with the chains of the Constitution, then tax reform might be worth visiting, but until then there is no need for this government will continue deficit spending and its lapdog, the FED will, as we are now seeing with Quantitative Easing, provide it with an avenue for such spending. That is the purpose, after all of the FED, to provide this government with a mechanism of spending that does not involve direct taxation of the population in order to function. It should also be understood that one of the primary reasons for taxation, particularly income, estate and gift taxes, is to maintain the fiat monetary system. Taxation under a fiat regime has little to do with revenue.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

I think first they need to

I think first they need to get rid of the income tax before even considering to make taxation "fair."


He has his own prefered fixes

but said he'd 'probably' vote for it if it actually came up and replaced the income tax entirely. He just wanted NOT to replace the income tax with anything. He'd rather cut federal spending.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

um i remember ron paul saying he wouldn't support

a fair tax in addition to an income tax. but if one were to replace the other, i don't remember him saying anything unfavorable. i don't know it recently seems to be almost a fashion trend in the liberty movement to take people's words out of context.. is the quality of our base degrading?

SteveMT's picture

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Ron Paul does not compromise, and he is not going to change.

Ask the same question that Ron Paul asks himself everyday.

Is this bill supported by what is in the Constitution?

Close only counts in horseshoes and dancing.
The reason for Ron Paul not being a co-sponsor of the bill is very easy to understand.

We need to get rid of the

We need to get rid of the income tax, but not replace it with another. This just lets the feds control us in other ways.

But for this to happen, that is, ridding us with an income tax, we need to shrink government.

The Fair Tax looks harmless, but what's to stop the feds from increasing the tax later, which they certainly did with the income tax.

No income tax, and no national sales tax. The Feds need to shrink, not expand.

No libertarian would or should support the Fair Tax.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

As I have said...

...in a few of my posts on DP, I believe the Fairtax WOULD have been a great first step in eliminating the IRS and calling for a repeal of the 16th amendment. It is succinct (seriously, read it) and well thought out (as long as repealing the 16th amendment took place).

However, things have changed drastically in this country since the Fairtax was proposed. The IRS is now an even bigger strong-arm in health care and other proposed legislation. It's become obvious Congress will never relinquish the kind of power the Fairtax demands to be successful. It is equally obvious that Congress could never pass the Fairtax without significantly changing it to co-opt its original intent.

So, now I say go for broke. I'd rather see efforts to eliminate the IRS than wasted efforts (time and money) on a bill that would never pass in its original form (in the political environment TODAY).

It's time to elect candidates who will work to dismantle the Federal machine and to support them everyday in their work.

This article fails to mention...

...that Alex Snitker has repeatedly said that the 16th Amendment (income tax) must be repealed before the fair tax can be implemented. That is stated explicitly in the FairTax plan. He would not support the initiation of any consumption tax without the abolition of the 16th Amendment.

He is also in favor of an audit of, and ultimately and end to, the Federal Reserve System. He is a proponent of sound money as is Dr. Paul.

-Adrian Wyllie
Media Director, Snitker for Senate 2010

Adrian Wyllie

Investigative Reporter, 1787 Network
Co-host, Liberty Underground Radio

Repealing the 16th amendment does not take away

the power of Congress to tax incomes.

Congress ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes.

What will change, is, we'll be right back to 1913 where we get to go to court to see if they need to apportion it or not in this particular circumstance or not.

In the end, they'll just pass another amendment and further entrench the income tax as a wage and salary tax (which it is not currently, but people think it is) even more.

The end result will suck badly.

I am FOR

Ron Paul and the FairTax. I understand what Mises and Paul are both saying about why support FairTax when no tax of the citizens is appropriate. But FairTax is a big step in the right direction. I have studied it in detail and everyone should before they comment.

I have too, and it is a big step in the wrong direction.

The biggest drawback, other than the math, and the constitutional issues, is the pre-bate.

It would make EVERYONE register with the government and turn EVERYONE into welfare recipients. EVERYONE gets a check "yay!"

I don't see that as a step in the right direction to reduce the size of government.

I see that as a way to head off being tarred and feathered. (at least for a bit)

It tries to be REVENUE NEUTRAL.

Like hell that is the right direction.

We need spending cuts WITH tax cuts.

Not tax shifting to try to fool people but still rape them without lube.

Anyway You Label The Word Taxation... It's Still Extortion !

The feral government is simply a bunch of middle men/woman that extort money from the productive segment of society, and farm out contract, after contract, after contract to their friends and associates using the excuse that this project or that project is for the benefit of everybody.

When in reality it only benefits a group of insiders.

The Constitution covers local defense with a well regulated militia. It spells out exactly what the feral governments duties are. It also spells out what the feral government is not allowed to do, such as make international alliances, treaties, or confederations, etc. etc.
It also suggests using Gold/Silver only as money, if any other country refuses to accept U.S. Gold/Silver money, that's their own problem.

Keeping Gold/Silver money unhindered within the productive segment of society assures the wealth produced by producers promotes prosperity for the greatest number of people.
It also inhibits runaway higher prices on everything.

Humpty Dumbty sat on a wall, humpty dumbty had a great fall, all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put humpty together again.....humpty dumbty was an old effigy for the king and his totally corrupt government that extorted taxes from his subject/slaves.


A national sales tax would create a black market in everything!

Which isn't altogether a bad thing, because a black market is really a truly free market that is not sanctioned (plundered) by the state.


It is a bad thing because it necessarily breeds crime to

support and facilitate it. And I don't mean statutory infractions, I mean real crime. Look at any example of prohibition now or in history. REAL crime follows black markets.

I like the idea of a consumption tax

The fact is even a constitutionally sized government requires and income. If no one is willing to have tariffs, excise taxes, or anything else then how is the government supposed to get income to even to its constitutional duty?

A consumption tax brings all underground money above ground and doesnt discriminate. There are no loop holes for the top 1% to exploit. If you dont want to pay the taxes then save your money. We need to save and invest more anyways. A consumption tax will promote savings which is what we need. Enough of this Keynesian consumption promotion.

Voluntary assessment.

No taxation without consent.

If the money isn't there, government can't get too big for its britches.

And I'm serious. This is my serious face. I'm not being sarcastic.

An across the board consumption tax will not breed savings, it will breed black markets and crime.

No loopholes?

Have you ever looked at state income tax statutes?

Did you really just make that claim?


A consumption tax is simple. We might exempt food and medicine. Get rid of everything else with the exception of some use taxes.
If you use the roads you should pay for them with gasoline taxes, liscensing.
Let the states collect like they do with sales taxes and send the Feds and local governments their part.

See, already, loopholes, exemptions, etc.

The plan is already shot because people like John B. want exemptions for certain goods.

Imagine what the bill will look like when the lobbyists finish with it.

Let's worry about shrinking before new taxes

I don't think funding the current government differently would make it get smaller. Besides, NONE of the money collected in taxes actually goes to anything but interest to the private banks.

We could cut the budget to 1990 levels....

if we could just eliminate the foreign aid from the budget. Then we should talk about cutting domestic spending and let charities aid the poor and do it more efficiently. The welfare/warfare state needs to end. But the Fed needs to ended as well, and probably first.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Foreign aid is no where NEAR that much.

But even our bloated general government only costs $30 billion.

We could eliminate ALL other stuff, eliminate everything but imposts and duties, and collect enough to pay for our current inefficient general government AND have about $100 billion a year to pay off the PRINCIPLE of the national debt.

(we would also have to dissolve the FED and any debt they own along with it, thus only have to pay back whatever private investors hold)

I'm willing

to have tariffs on imports.
I think it's a good idea. So did the founders.

The income tax needs to get kicked to the curb, pronto.

Consumption tax is an economy killer.
I believe the driving force behind the "Fair Tax" is to play the "Shell game", and shuffle-around the tax system so that they can pull the money from the population bulge(baby boomers) as they spend their retirement money that they've saved
They taxed all the Boomers' incomes as they accumulated the money, and now that they are retiring and have minimal incomes, they want to tax that money again "on the way out" when it's being spent. Just another tax shift to "shear" the rest of the Boomers' money that was already taxed I-don't-know-how-many-times, and now they want to put their fingers in it again when it's spent.

Tax is a demographics game. It needs to be targeted at the largest demographic with money. And this "Fair Tax" is a shuffle that can do that. But, they need to hide the true goal of what it is, so that it can get passed as something "fair". It's not a "solution" to taxation in any way. It's simply a ruse to move the taxation in such a way that it can augment the government's needs for more and more money. When the population bulge demographic is moving from income to retirement spending, just shift the taxation from income tax to spending tax, and they are in your pockets again.

The fair tax reminds me of this


Best part is at 8:28

Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.

When I was fooled by neocons, I supported the Fair Tax

The Fair Tax basically replaces the income tax with a consumption tax...that is, there would be no taxing of your paycheck; however, the sales tax would increase dramatically.

Further, to help the poor, everyone would get a government check every month to cover basic food costs. The more people in your family, the more money you'd get.

Generally, we get all of our paycheck, people get their basic needs met, and prices jump up by the same percentage that our paychecks increase.

Well, that sounded better than the income tax. Especially, since I hardly spend money.

But then I heard Ron Paul talk about how wrong the income tax is...thus, I studied it and found that it was supposed to be a temporary tax.

The income tax that we have now is not supposed to exist. Thus, replacing it with the Fair Tax is side-stepping the real issue.

Any discussion of new ways to tax shows complete lack

of understanding of our economic/monetary system. Nationalizing the Fed and using inflation as a tax makes a hell of a lot more sense than any "fair tax", "flat tax" or any tax, and it is a stupid plan too. If people really "get it" with how the Fed works and how our system generates money, NOBODY would be thinking of creative ways to keep it alive.

I'm not a supporter

of the "Fair Tax" plan.

I also am pretty cognizant of the OP using this topic for their own personal vendetta against Alex Snitker, and it is merely a continuation of the previous vendettas posted here over the last week or so.

Not particularly interested in hearing about irrelevant Libertarian Party in-fighting.