Kevin McCarthy disavows 30 percent national sales tax he promised a vote on to win House speaker race

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 days ago  •  33 comments


Kevin McCarthy disavows 30 percent national sales tax he promised a vote on to win House speaker race
Replacing all current federal taxes with a national sales tax "is not a new idea," or a popular one, CNN notes. An independent analysis of a similar national sales tax in 2011 "found that, on average, most income groups would pay more tax than they did under the federal tax system at the time — except the top 5 percent of earners who would see a tax cut."

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Kevin McCarthy disavows 30 percent national sales tax he promised a vote on to win House speaker race


A mong the things House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)   promised a group of 20 hard-right holdouts   in order to win the speaker's gavel was   a vote on legislation   that would scrap the Internal Revenue System and U.S. taxation system and replace it with a 30 percent national sales tax. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) has already filed legislation for this "Fair Tax Act," but McCarthy   told reporters   on Tuesday he opposes the bill. 


McCarthy isn't alone. Three GOP congressmen from New York swing districts have already pledged to vote against it — effectively   dooming the long-shot legislation

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist called the steep national sales tax "a political gift to [President] Biden and the Democrats,"   telling Semafor   that the Fair Tax Act is "the first significant problem created for the Republican Party by the 20 people who thought that there was no downside to the approach they took."   The Wall Street Journal   editorial board   agreed and suggested   that if "Carter and other supporters insist on a masochistic vote, the GOP could invoke the Freedom Caucus's demand for 'regular order' and kill the Fair Tax in the Ways and Means Committee."


Replacing all current federal taxes with a national sales tax "is   not a new idea ," or a popular one,  CNN notes . An independent analysis of a similar national sales tax in 2011 "found that, on average, most income groups would pay more tax than they did under the federal tax system at the time — except the top 5 percent of earners who would see a tax cut." Not surprisingly, "outside the deepest trenches of conservatism, a 30 percent sales tax is mostly seen as an obvious political loser,"   Semafor   adds . "Democrats, for their part, can hardly seem to believe their luck that their opponents might attach themselves to it."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 days ago

This sales tax would devastate the middle class. So much for MAGA being for the little guy. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 days ago

So you are saying McCarthy is not a MAGA Republican seeing how he opposes the bill.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    2 days ago

When it suits him to be MAGA  he is MAGA. If Trump appears to be going to win the nomination again, McCarthy will endorse him. Is that MAGA enough for you? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 days ago

Nice back pedal, good job.  Would  hate to see  you lose your street creds...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    2 days ago

A cruel regressive idea from the regressive party to make taxes more regressive transferring the US tax burden from the rich to the poor!

Typical!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2    2 days ago

Exactly, similar to the regressive Value Added Tax that the European Social Democracies employ.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3  Ronin2    2 days ago

So bringing something to a vote is the same as passing it?

You really think Establishment Republicans will vote for this? jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 days ago

I think I'll do the honors when the vote is taken. We really need to know who likes to spend & tax.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
3.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 days ago

Regardless of weather it passes or not it's clearly what the maga Republicans want.  Do you think it's a good idea Ronin?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  SteevieGee @3.2    2 days ago

I have always favored a graduated flat tax with no loop holes or deductions.

As for what MAGA Republicans want, I don't really give a damn in this instance.

The same way I don't give a damn about Democrats and their far leftist loons when it comes to what they want for taxes.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  SteevieGee @3.2    2 days ago

I wonder if people like Ronin have considered what kind of a burden a national sales tax would be on the poor and middle class? This national tax would add to the tax burden already at the local level such as municipal, county, and state sales taxes. My purchases at my local level are about 15% above the purchase price. Add 30% and who can afford food?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 days ago

the MAGA wing that tried to deny McCarthy the speakership are who is pushing this. Why? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3    2 days ago

Because they want to do away with the federal income tax. Is that really so damn hard to believe?

It will also do away with all loopholes and tax breaks that come with the federal income tax. Something Democrats should be in favor of. Or were at one point before they went completely unhinged.

Bringing it to the floor is a largely symbolic gesture and costs McCarthy absolutely nothing; because there is no way Establishment Republicans or Democrats will vote for it.

Unless House Democrats try to fuck McCarthy over by deciding to all vote for it. In which case they look like morons; and it will go to the Senate where Schumer will kill it. Unless he decides to join the moron brigade and bring it to a vote and all the Democrats decide to really stick it to McCarthy and vote for it. Which will send it Brandon's desk; where he will VETO it. Unless he really, really, really, wants to stick it to McCarthy and signs it into law. If all that happens (and the new tax law is really that unpopular) guess who the US voter will blame. Hint, it isn't McCarthy and Establishment Republicans that voted against it.

See how absurd and stupid this is? Talk about making a huge damn deal over nothing!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.3.1    2 days ago
Because they want to do away with the federal income tax. Is that really so damn hard to believe?

Yes. 

The "fair tax" or national sales tax idea is based on everyone paying the same percentage of their earnings to support the government. In the case of the sales tax, it is particularly regressive. If a rich person pays 50,000 for a new car, and a middle class person pays 50,000 dollars for the same car, they are contributing the same amount to the national treasury, even though the 50,000 dollars may be a sizeable expense for the middle class person but a relative pittance to the rich person. 

That is not the way we want America to work, which is why we have had a progressive income tax for over a hundred years. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    2 days ago
everyone paying the same

That's a FLAT TAX.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.3    2 days ago
everyone paying the same percentage

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.3    2 days ago

We already have sales taxes. But they are not the only form of taxation (which is what these republicans want). If you make a sales tax the only form of revenue for the government, everyone would be paying the same percentage into that revenue. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
3.3.6  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.5    2 days ago

But not at the national level which is the point of this seed.  All sales taxes are currently at the state and local levels only.

If you make a sales tax the only form of revenue for the government, everyone would be paying the same percentage into that revenue. 

Yes, that is true.  But it would impact the poor more than the rich as the poor have to spend a greater percentage of their income on "stuff" than rich people do.  Simple math.

National sales taxes to replace income tax and/or flat taxes have been talked about for many years, but I don't see them taking hold here.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.5    2 days ago

A lot of the rest of the world (170 countries) has a VAT (value added tax) that everyone pays. And it isn't cheap.

  • Hungary: 27%
  • Croatia, Denmark, Sweden: 25%
  • Cyprus, Germany, Romania: 19%
  • Malta: 18%
  • Luxembourg: 17%

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.5    yesterday

Suddenly you don't want taxes to pay for all you spent?

It is estimated that we would need balanced budgets and additional revenue of at least $7 Trillion over 10 years to balance the budget.

Your thoughts John?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.8    yesterday

The proposed Republican national sales tax would replace ALL other taxes that provide revenue to the federal government, including estate taxes, corporate taxes, social security taxes, etc. 

A sales tax on all goods and services is inherently regressive.  What if someone making a million dollars a year decides they dont want to buy much of  anything during a particular year? Then they would pay no taxes that year. It is ludicrous. 

This is a libertarian idea that will go nowhere, and its pretty sobering that a Republican controlled House would even consider passing it through to the Senate. 

The good news is that this nonsense will blow up in their faces at the ballot box. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
3.3.10  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.9    yesterday

You're assuming that it would pass the House in the first place.  So far it's only been introduced to the House (as all bills start out) and referred to the Ways and Means Committee.  That's all that's happened. 

The odds of it passing the house are very low to begin with.  And it will never pass the Senate nor would Biden sign it with anything but his VETO pen.  So in reality this is just a partisan excuse to bitch about the other side.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.9    21 hours ago
The good news is that this nonsense will blow up in their faces at the ballot box. 

That depends on how many democrats vote for it.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    2 days ago

Instead of raising taxes, they need to cut spending.

What suggestions do the Dems have about how to go about that?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 days ago

I know that Democrats will never make the big cuts to Medicare and Social Security that the gop wants to make...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @4.1    2 days ago

What would those "big cuts" entail. Oh, and if it actually makes it, the cuts would be for future benefits and not affect those on the programs now.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4.1    2 days ago

What "big cuts" would that be? Can you tell us what their plans are? Liberals have been repeating this lie for decades.

Both Medicare and Social Security are overdue for some type of reform or they will eventually go broke.

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
4.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.1    2 days ago
What would those "big cuts" entail

So what's the over/under bet on this?  Will the fear mongering from the White House be offered up or another senseless meme?  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.3    2 days ago

Extremely possible and likely

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
4.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @4.1    2 days ago

Cuts or limits on future growth?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.5    2 days ago

More than likely the latter. Dems like to use the term "cut" when in actuality, there is no increase or less of an increase than they want. Like "we want a 10% increase" and you only get 6%. That's how Dems define a cut. Always has been.

 
 
 
freepress
Freshman Silent
5  freepress    2 days ago

They are going to spin this thing around so often they are going to fall down dizzy from the constant about face on all they things they have lied about trying to hang on to their base.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    20 hours ago

When we have basically a consumer economy, this would devastate that. We rely on people spending money and this would flatten that.

There are simple easy things that could be done just making tweaks to the current system and stop giving exemptions for every damn thing.

 
 

Who is online









Nerm_L
Trout Giggles
Tacos!
cjcold


28 visitors