[gymbeaux]

There’s a bill[1] sitting in the House of Representatives that would abolish the IRS and replace all tax code with a consumption tax. In typical fashion they’ve written it so it seems like the flat consumption tax will be something like 24% but it’s actually 30% (they word it as something like “24% of the total is tax” which really means “the tax is 30%”).

I’m curious when they plan on deploying this. It specifies a 3-year schedule so you think okay is this to be signed into law in 2025 so that the IRS is abolished during the next election year, or are they going to wait a year or two and have the IRS abolishment only “trigger” if Republicans continue to control the government beyond 2028? Or perhaps they will push it through if/when Democrats retake some or all of Congress in 2026?

One thing’s for sure though, the 1% will use cryptocurrency to dodge this consumption tax and it will (as usual) disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes, who aren’t as savvy in tax fraud/evasion/“loopholes”.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/t...

[gs17]

From Wikipedia:

> FairTax is a fixed rate sales tax proposal introduced as bill H.R. 25 in the United States Congress every year since 2005.

An R-GA sponsors it every year and it never gets further than "introduced", with fewer co-sponsors on it now than ever AFAIK. Technically, if it did get into law, it could create greater chaos, it has a provision to terminate itself if the 16th Amendment isn't repealed, so enough incompetence could eliminate taxes entirely.

[zdragnar]

Either a Democratic Congress or president would prevent such a bill from passing. Sales taxes are inherently flat, which to them means regressive.

The idea that we would give up progressive taxes is pretty antithetical to their platform, given how many campaign on raising taxes on high income earners.

Given how slow even a single-party-controlled Congress is, I sincerely doubt such a bill would ever see the light of day.

[quesera]

> Either a Democratic Congress or president would prevent such a bill from passing

The Senate still has the filibuster, as well. This will not pass in the current Congress either.

The filibuster rule is vulnerable, but I don't think there's enough support from Senate Republicans to do so. If I'm wrong, it would be an escalation which would add more fuel to the 2026 fire.

[gymbeaux]

I’m always hazy on how exactly that works. I know some bills require a supermajority (66) and I know filibuster can block some bills with fewer votes than that… but it doesn’t always work, because the 2017 tax reform bill was passed.

Also, I remember there being talk when the DINOs were voting with the Republicans of ending the filibuster…. So… I mean the current admin just ignores rules, why wouldn’t this be the Congress that ends the filibuster? This could be their one shot to implement the “Final Solution” (Project 2025).

[quesera]

I believe very few votes require a supermajority in the Senate -- impeachment votes definitely do, and also votes to override a Presidential veto.

All ordinary votes just require a simple majority, but the filibuster is sort of a special-case that can be invoked any time, requiring 60 votes to bring the vote to the table at all.

You're right -- if this Senate abolishes the filibuster, it will likely be for "budget votes only" or somesuch. The Senate isn't quite as full of short-term thinkers as the House is though. I don't think the Senate Rs will go for it, because it's the only thing stopping a future D majority from doing what majorities do, and smart Rs know they are a minority party under ordinary circumstances.

But if I'm wrong, it will mean that the Senate Rs are going for broke on a short-term play, and may be discounting future risks. That would be the behaviour of the very desperate, or of the very powerful.

If the Senate Rs believe they are one of those two things -- either one -- the consequences could be enormous.

This is all very dramatic of course. Normally I'd dismiss such ideas. But the temperature is very high right now, and this time might actually be different, this time...

[gymbeaux]

It’s optimistic of you to think we’ll have a Democratic anything for the foreseeable future. In 2016 we could say “well a lot of people are tired of the status quo” but after 2024… Nah, this what America wants. This is what the people who couldn’t bother to vote, voted for when they chose to stay home.

[gs17]

Not even Democrats in control, the amount of income tax-related lobbying should prevent it alone.

[glitchc]

Given that the lower and middle classes pay a disproportionate amount of income tax, with no mechanisms to avoid a tax before the paycheque even arrives, I think this is a net win.

[mikestew]

Given that the lower and middle classes pay a disproportionate amount of income tax…

Not only is that not a “given”, I’d argue that you’re completely wrong. One doesn’t have to look very hard to find out how much income tax is paid by lower class: effectively zero.

[gymbeaux]

A consumption tax would affect the lower class more than the 1% for two main reasons:

1. Non-discretionary spending as a percentage of income is much larger for the lower (and middle) classes, who spend 100% or near 100% of their income on “essentials” like food and shelter.

2. The tax itself is obscene- 30% or thereabouts. As others have pointed out, the poorest of the poor don’t pay any income tax, and many essentials (like unprepared food) are not currently taxed. I don’t recall if the bill would add a tax on unprepared food. I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.

[glitchc]

Whole (or raw) foods are tax-exempt in the US. This is NY, other states are roughly on par:

https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/listin...

There are about 10 that still charge taxes on groceries, but are considering phasing them out.

Shelter is always tax exempt. There is no tax on rent. Mortgages, if anything, come with a tax rebate, as amounts paid can be claimed against collected income taxes.

[hollerith]

You did not read your own linked page: food that are already heated-up and ready to eat are taxable, but most foods are not. Whether it is a whole food or a processed food products with many ingredients does not matter. Also, NY taxes soft drinks and other unhealthy foods (but most states do not).

Also, you are wrong when you wrote, "Given that the lower and middle classes pay a disproportionate amount of income tax".

In fact, most Americans who earn under about $40,000 a year pay no federal income tax. I believe the vehicle that effects this outcome is mainly the earned income tax credit.

[gymbeaux]

Things poor people need that are still taxed:

- Clothes - Shoes - Plumber/Electrician/Handyman - School supplies (though some states have tax holidays) - Gas/public transit - Car maintenance - Utility bills

[pb7]

Bottom half of the population pays ~zero taxes.

[quesera]

~Zero income taxes only.

Full sales and gasoline taxes, and relative to income, disproportionately more.

[pb7]

>Given that the lower and middle classes pay a disproportionate amount of income tax

>Bottom half of the population pays ~zero taxes.

?

[abletonlive]

Okay? So still effectively zero. The top 20% do the overwhelming amount of the shopping.

[quesera]

Are you asking for an explanation of why a consumption tax disproportionately affects citizens with lower incomes?