By Mark Anderson —
Has the late, great JimTraficant’s flat sales-tax proposal outlived the former Ohio Democratic congressman and entered the legislative pipeline? This could be the case, as Senators Gerald W. “Jerry” Moran (R-Kan.) and David Alfred Perdue, Jr. (R-Ga.) have introduced a bill designed “to overhaul and simplify the American tax system.”
The bill, S. 155, was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. The other cosponsors at this writing are Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Its House companion bill is H.R. 25.
Moran’s bill, in many respects, uncannily resembles the federal consumption tax proposal put forth by Traficant.
What the Moran bill lacks, however, is Traficant’s other major provision to divorce the Federal Reserve central bank, which is owned and controlled by the Rothschild dynasty. Jim also envisioned Congress reviving its dormant sovereign power to stop being a tenant and issue money directly interest free—instead of renting Fed money at perpetual interest.
Traficant, who was railroaded by fellow congressmen and imprisoned for seven years on bogus corruption charges, would often say: “The Fed can do business elsewhere, just not with the United States. I would say to them, ‘We’re no longer in a partnership with you; we want a divorce!’”
Moran said: “I joined Senator Perdue . . . in introducing the Fair Tax Act of 2015. . . . Our proposal, known specifically as the ‘Fair Tax,’ replaces our complicated and costly tax system with a flat national consumption tax and would eventually close the Internal Revenue Service.”
The critical words are “replaces” and “eventually.” Americans would need rock-hard assurance that the federal income tax would be promptly replaced and would not be resurrected.
Over several months before his untimely death due to an apparent farming accident last September in Ohio, Big Jim traveled as much as he could from town to town, conference to conference, to promote his Project Freedom USA (PFUSA).
With PFUSA, Traficant strove to abolish the federal income tax and the IRS, while replacing that 100-year-old tax with a federal “sales,” or consumption, tax.
Two of Jim’s key points were:
1.) Tying federal taxes to purchases to get the tax man out of people’s personal finances. This means no more filing 1040s and no more scraping for deductions.
2.) Everyone making a purchase in America—be they a U.S. citizen, those visiting on visas or even illegal aliens—could not easily avoid paying into the system.
So did Moran or Traficant write the following statement? “[Repeal] federal corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes and estate and gift taxes, and every American would be allowed to purchase goods and services tax
free up to the national poverty level.”
The answer is Moran—sounding a lot like Traficant.
But Traficant felt that used goods should not be charged a sales tax—the tax only would apply to new stuff. Moran’s bill is detailed and parts of it may sound pleasant to some: Title I calls for “income taxes repealed” (Sec. 101), “payroll taxes repealed” (Sec. 102) and “estate and gift taxes repealed” (Sec. 103).
However, Moran envisions enacting the flat tax at a 23% rate “of the gross payments for taxable property or service,” according to this reporter’s reading of his bill. Moran’s bill explains that this hefty rate is a combination of the “general revenue rate of 14.91%, plus the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and the hospital insurance rate.”
Traficant initially proposed 25% and dropped it to 15%, although he felt the tax rate could be gradually lowered to a tiny percentage as the Fed is divorced and debt-free United States notes replace Fed notes. Evidently Moran isn’t going there, although more details, be they good or gory, will emerge—if the bill gets traction.
Moran’s statements for S. 155 included the remark: “I am pleased to now lead this effort after co-sponsoring this legislation since 2006.” So he’s been at this flat tax thing for nearly 10 years.
A major concern among flat-tax critics is that a flat sales tax would be highly regressive and hit the middle and lower classes the hardest. Supporters counter that the absence of the federal income tax would loosen up a tidal wave of purchasing power, investment, job creation and debt-retirement.
Yet it would be greatly helpful if the end the Fed and monetary reform measures raised by Traficant were front and center, thereby rendering the tax measures less urgent. And while Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul’s efforts to resurrect a full Fed audit are laudable, members of Congress need lots of schooling from constituents to get their priorities straight.
The “package deal” of the Fed (create debt) and federal income tax (pay the impossible debt), born in 1913, needs to be deep-sixed, with cement poured over the top, for debt repudiation and real freedom to ever have a chance.
AFP Roving Editor Mark Anderson is a veteran reporter who covers the annual Bilderberg meetings and is chairman of AFP’s new America First Action Committee, designed to involve AFP readers in focusing intensely on Congress to enact key changes, including monetary reform and a pullback of the warfare state. He and his wife Angie often work together on news projects. Write to Mark at email@example.com.