Fox News: Should Income Tax Be Replaced With A Sales Tax?


I think it’s really great how in a Fox News segment out of nowhere Rand is mentioned. This would never happen with Ron. It shows that Rand is making great inroads with mainstream Republicans and with the ‘right-wing’ media.

With regards to the actual topic, I strongly favor a consumption tax (preferably sales tax instead of VAT) as opposed to a tax on income. All taxes are destructive, but in terms of morality and economics a sales tax is much less bad than income or property taxes.

What do you all think?


No it’s because Rand actually has a good idea once in awhile. His father never did.


Just a sales tax is a much bigger burden on the middle and lower class people. Essentially this would keep taxes around the same for the bottom 90% and cut them in half for the top 10%. The middle and lower class get no relief and are encouraged to buy less things in the economy and the govt loses 30% of revenue further driving up budget problems.


How about no income tax replaced with nothing?


That would be the best. The federal government shouldn’t be funded by anything other than tariffs and excise taxes.


All suggested national sales taxes include a rebate for lower and middle income people.

The budget will never be solved by more revenue. It’s been tried at the federal and state levels and all it does is give legislators more money to play with. Any tax reform must be revenue negative like Rand Paul says.


Yeah because Ron Paul has never advocated eliminating the federal income tax, right?


Haha you want to eliminate a tax, in this political climate??? Good luck. Ron Paul is just too idealistic, at least Rand tries to think of ideas that can be realistically considered.


It will never be solved with less either, spending is the problem talking about taxes is pointless until spending is under control



Americans For Fair Taxation


Exactly Biggie…but it ain’t gonna happen. Key provision is to REPEAL the 16th amendment. I’m not holding my breath…but it WOULD solve a lot of problems!


I’ve been in favor of a consumption tax since Cong. Bill Archer came out with it in the 90’s.
I don’t know where anybody gets the idea that this would hurt middle or lower income more than anyone, as NO one would pay taxes on neccessities, nor used goods, nor services; such as those brakes you need replaced on the used vehicle.

Plus, nobody gets out of paying taxes beyond necessities; including drug dealers or people here illegally.

And not to disparage the weathly, but it seems they’d still pay the brunt of the taxes as they can afford and usually want NEW items; not used.

Where’s the rub?


And the apportioned tax should Congress create an annual deficit in which case each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for their State to pay an apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit Congress created while in Washington. I kind of think pinko state Congressional Delegations like California would turn fiscally conservative overnight to avoid having to deplete their own State Treasury to extinguish a federal deficit created by Congress.

Bottom line is, I agree with you! Imposts, duties, excise taxes and the apportioned tax among the states, just like our founders intended!


It’s not “PORK“. It’s a money laundering operations used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the politically well connected.


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from 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! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the pockets of business and labor.

“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 apportioned tax to be laid.

“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 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 as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, 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.”

*NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X ANNUAL DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!*

“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 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 shall take effect one year after the required number of States have approved it.


***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”***3 Elliot’s 41