As this is written, Congress has begun, without very much media hype because of the ongoing special prosecutor investigation news(?), to work on the income tax changes proposed by PRESDT in his campaign last year. For us overtaxed citizens ruled by overpaid bureaucrats, it appears that the loyal(?) opposition has resorted to their usual tactics to delay and vehemently oppose whatever is presented by the majority in the House.
Of course, if the duly elected large majority in the House with an “R” behind their name would be loyal to the elected president (instead of their money generous lobbyists), his proposed plan would sail through and be sent to the Senate.
In that situation, the House minority would be unable to even slow the process down. Then the bill, or bills, would go to the Senate where archaic rules would allow the minority to bottle things up with only the threat of a filibuster. It has been in my lifetime, believed to be since I was middle-aged, that those rules were changed so that only the threat would bring things to a screeching halt. It used to be that to mount a filibuster against any action, a group would be required to actually occupy the podium and speak. There have been instances in my memory when an individual senator would actually speak for up to 24 hours without a break and in a couple of cases, until actually collapsing exhausted.
So it would seem that either tax relief bills will be stopped there, or so modified that the House could not reach agreement on revisions.
Or, what ultimately goes to the White House for signature may be of no real help or relief for us who actually pay the bills with our taxes.
The Democrat leaders, in both houses, have adamantly stated that they and their members will not agree to any of the proposals. Instead, they have stated that they want more taxes, particularly on corporations and individually owned companies. Don’t believe their lies, because more taxes on business simply will mean higher prices on goods and services.
Also, mandated higher minimum wages means that many of the entry-level workers will simply lose their jobs. Also, many companies that are new or having thin margins will be forced to go out of business, thus more jobs are lost. Politicians of all parties and persuasion seem to have no concept of the facts of life for business or don’t care.
Back to the income tax abomination. For more than ten years, there has been a bill submitted to the House of Representatives each odd-numbered year for a change to what is titled the “FairTax.” For the Congress that began in 2017, it is labeled HR 25. This year there are 45 co-sponsors, including U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine, Rep. Markwayne Mullen and Rep. Frank Lucas. In the previous sessions, Rep. Steve Russell was also signed on. U.S Rep. Tom Cole has not ever – to my knowledge signed on. There has been a companion bill submitted in the U.S. Senate labeled as SB18 which has only 4 (8 percent) out of 50 members and both of the Oklahoma Senators, Sen. Jim Inhofe and Sen. James Lankford, are included. Praise to the five of our congressional representatives who are truly representing their constituents.
If we had the FairTax in operation, the IRS (“Infernal” Revenue Service) would simply be phased out over a period lasting no longer than seven years. That would be necessary to allow for the audit and fraud prosecution of questionable returns already filed. As proposed, it would take effect on January first of the year following the repeal of all the current income tax laws, hopefully followed by repeal of Amendment XVI to the Constitution, which authorized, not ordered, the institution of taxes on incomes. It simply states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
It is believed that institution of the FairTax would begin the greatest economic boom in the United States in history. It would impose a tax, initially 23 percent, on all new goods purchased to be collected at the point of sale. Vendors would remit the tax to the state tax authority, which would then retain a small fee from that and forward the balance to the U.S. Treasury monthly. The savings in expenses of accounting and reporting would at a minimum equal or exceed the tax amounts so prices could drop.
Individuals would need to report only the number living at home and receive a monthly “prebate” of the taxes on necessities estimated for a family of that size living on a poverty-level income at the location.