Tax Code Puts American Dream for Seniors at Risk

TAX-CODEFrom – State Representative Charles “Doc” Anderson

You work hard all your life, take care of your family, pay your taxes, and save for a rainy day and to secure your retirement and provide for your golden years. You believe you have achieved the American dream, however, with the current federal tax burden, families have to shoulder, the ability of most Americans to obtain these goals begins to unravel. This is especially manifest in the federal tax code by the “age penalty,” a tax policy targeting seniors which results in a much higher and unreasonable federal tax burden. This “senior tax abuse” scenario is unfair to older Americans after they have worked, saved, and paid taxes all their lives and undermines the American dream.

The top 1% of income earners nationally (millionaires & billionaires) pay on average a federal tax rate of 22% yearly. Compare that with the rate paid by most seniors receiving Social Security benefits and currently earning over $32,000.00 each year who are forced to pay a tax rate of up to 28%. At the $42,000.00 yearly income level (hardly considered wealthy,) 85% of Social Security Benefits become taxable up to a 28% rate. Seriously, a higher tax rate (28%) for a $42,000 yearly income compared to a 22% average rate for million dollar wage earners? “This “age penalty” is blatantly unfair, confiscatory, and betrays those who are self-reliant, did the right thing, and saved for their future retirement.

The arbitrary mandatory minimum distribution (forced withdrawal up to 4% of all savings, IRA’s and annuities) every year after the age of 70.5 is clearly and simply unfair age discrimination on the part of the IRS and Congress. Forcing seniors to withdraw up to 4% of their savings each year (also taxed at a higher rate and increasing their total income) is punitive and creates a “double jeopardy” tax penalty not faced by younger tax payers.

Another, even more egregious, travesty cooked into the IRS tax code allows the federal government to pilfer the financial assets of seniors upon the death of their spouse. The surviving spouse must deal, not only, with the emotional loss but also must surrender most or all of the Social Security benefits of their deceased husband or wife. To add further injury, standard deduction and personal exemptions ($10,300) of their spouse are also lost, resulting in a higher income tax rate on less income.

The result of all of this is that seniors are financing a disproportionate amount of federal spending. The current presidential campaign provides seniors with the opportunity to demand that those seeking the office explain how they will remedy this government sanctioned “senior abuse.” It’s time to lift the heavy hand of government, reform this unfair depletion of senior American’s assets, allow them to reap the benefits of their retirement planning, give seniors a fair shake, and revitalize the American dream.


State Representative Charles “Doc” Anderson, a veterinarian, has represented  District 56 (Waco and McLennan County) in the Texas House of Representatives since 2005

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frank Van Kerckhove
6 years ago

lets remove all taxes we now pay and passThe Fair Tax where we all decide how much tax we pay by what we buy and also give a break to the poor

Roy Hubbard
7 years ago

I guess paying taxes on a social security check is akin to paying taxes on dividends from investments but it just seems to be a bit of a gouge by the elitists who run this country.

James Mourek
7 years ago

There should be a AMAC Congressional Lobby to end the forced distributions from IRA accounts at age 70 1/2.

Have your favorite Congressman enter a bill to the Congressional Legislature for a Vote in the 2016 election year!

I’d speculate the Democrats will be losing Florida, California, Texas; and, the entire ‘rust belt’ right on into New York City itself for every Congressional NO Vote on a focused legislative issue of ending the United State Government’s forced IRA sales of all IRA asset categories nationally triggered by AGE discrimination.

Maybe an Age Discrimination Law Suit for compensation for past Governmental discrimination might hurry them along; (ducking the issue), by having the Supreme Court find for the ACLU in an Age Discrimination Law Suit.

Just how can a government justify having elderly forced to sell their assets without also forcing every citizen potentially to do likewise….based on AGE !

A very dumb law from the political era of Lindon Johnson never since adjusted even by actuarial tables, huh.

Paula Recker
7 years ago

I am retired, but work part time for a financial planner (CPA and CFP) who also teaches taxes at a state university and does tax preparation.

His comments regarding the Tax Code article were that the percentages were incorrect as were the comments about the RMD.

My concern is that if we as members of AMAC cannot rely on the credibility of your articles, how are we to put credibility in your products advertised or any information you provide.

James Pierce
7 years ago
Reply to  Paula Recker

As far as the comments Mr. Anderson made concerning taxes during retirement; the Tax Code is so complicated that I am surprised if anyone can fully understand it no matter how many initials they have after their name. I am near retirement and have consulted several of these so called financial “experts”, and have received conflicting advice from each one.
Concerning the RMD (required minimum distribution), Mr. Anderson seems to have it correct according to the calculator found on the IRS website, although he does not reference to the fact that the percentage actually increases as one gets older. The only real misleading information that I have found in this article is contained in the “reply” section. Sandwiched between the Federal Government and these financial advisors, seniors really don’t have a chance! Good luck!

John Wood
7 years ago
Reply to  James Pierce

The reason I joined AMAC was that they are supposed to be an alternative to aarp, the TAX CODE that we have now started out as a FLAT TAX but over the years the politicians have added this favor for this and that until we arrived at this mess that we have now. The original Flat Tax was very low 1 half of 1percent I think. The FAIRTAX is one rate, paid only on new goods & services So with that rate being out there for every one to see they can’t sneak in with an increase. Why not have a straw vote on AMAC for the Fairtax? When the TEA PARTY was in its infancy they had a questionair that one of the questions was are you for the FAIRTAX? They had overwhelming response YES. Well very soon that question came off of their list, It seems that DICK ARMEY (politician) was one of their advisors and Dick ARMEY likes a Flat Tax which is where our present Tax Code started out.

John Wood
7 years ago
Reply to  Paula Recker

As far as the government getting rid of programs or departments once started, Your’e right , But the people have not Forced them to. A way to do it is to vote all encumbents out of office, until they get the message. If every one would convince 10 Voters to do this it would work. Think about this, one third of the citizens of the 13 Colonies wanted to fight for Independence from England, one third diddn’t want to and one third diddn’t care one way or the other. Thank God one third got it done.

Walter Homsey, Jr.
7 years ago

What? Are you joining the antagonists? We don’t need any more dissension among the ranks, especially at this time.
There have been plenty of occasions to have brought this issue to fore. The socialistic Democratic Party does not need you help. Get off of it and any like articles!

7 years ago

Don’t vote for incumbents! Incumbents = No change

7 years ago

This is one reason that people are being told not to put any money into banks or investments as the government knows and goes after what you have. Taxes offset any interest or profit on investments and only the banks, investment advisors, and the government gets any benefit on your money.

Tom Reynolds
7 years ago

Most of AMAC’s stuff I agree with but this seems to be creating issues for the purpose of creating issues to make
AMAC look like they are doing something. Its too deceptive, which is what I hate about politicians.

The paragraph about tax codes is misleading. For example, it uses “averages” for wealthy versus “up to” for seniors
which are different and intentionally misleading. I’m not so sure this premise is true given the misleading way it
is presented. And remember, the rate is applied after our deductions and exemptions.

As to the mandatory minimum distribution – those were the rules when we agreed to shelter current income
in the expectation of lower income and less taxes when we retire. (Aha, see purpose of above paragraph’s misleading issue.)
Now, after we have the benefits, lets complain about the cost?

The issues with SS and death are legitimate, but keeping the marital tax deduction when single is pushing It.

Rather, AMAC should deal with the disparity between Social Security and Civil service. Ultimately, Social security
is paid out of current tax receipts, as is Civil service pensions. But if some one has worked 30 years they can
retire on FULL BENEFITS at 55 on Civil Service but must wait until 66 to retire on FULL BENEFITS on Social Security.
There should be no increase in the SS retirement age until Civil Service retirement age is equal.

John Reid
7 years ago
Reply to  Tom Reynolds

The rate is always applied “after” deductions etc. Thus if it is higher it is always higher relative to the reported income.

Roy Mendelsohn
7 years ago

There is a book that has been published titled “The Fair Tax”. It very clearly lays down the basis for this tax. It states that all existing taxes are eliminated and replaced by a national Sales Tax of, I believe, 20%. There are proposals to cushion the impact on low income people which seem reasonable to me. One is initially appalled at the prospect of everything we buy jumping from 6%/7%/8% to 20% until one realizes that all vendors will also be appalled at the drop in sales such an increase would effect. The vendors would quickly realize that without all the business and other taxes they previously paid, they would be able to reduce their prices to something less than the previous prices with sales taxes at 6%/7%/8%. No doubt there will be hiccups initially, but we have to get off the current IRS debacle. This could well be the last election have. We had better get it right this time!!.

Roy Hubbard
7 years ago
Reply to  Roy Mendelsohn

I like your first name! Anyway, I am not well versed in the absolutely mind boggling cesspool of our tax plan. I hear all sorts of proposed solutions which tells me that a problem really exists and many people are looking for a solution. The one that seems to be the most applicable is the “consumption” plan. You buy it, you pay tax on it.
Seems pretty simple to me. Surely there will be some bartering to escape the tax penalty but in the end, the loopholes cleverly designed to protect the very wealthy from parting with some of that wealth, will for the most part, close. YOu can’t eat money or sail around the world on it or do all the things that money provides. You have to spend it and get taxed when you do.
Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe in a man’s freedom to do all he can to become rich and famous. I just want to insure that if taxing people’s money is a necessity to make the whole thing work then those who are most successful should pay for their success. they should not be punished for their success nor should they be required to pay for the have nots because they choose to do not. We, ideally, by the constitution, should be only paying taxes for the defense of our country. I will donate happily to that end. It has all gotten so out of control by the rulings of our greedy politicians sucking up to the special interests that there may not be a solution other than a second revolution, an ideal that I have found amusing in the past.

7 years ago

Possibly the only escape from what our country has become is a Second Revolution.

7 years ago

Since this article brought up a “discrepancy” between the 22% tax rate paid by the top 1% of earners and the 28% paid by retirees who earn $42,000 annually, you have probably opened a so-called can of worms. Now the left will want to raise the 22% to exceed the 28%. SHHHHH. Don’t say it loudly again. They might hear.

There are a lot of changes that need to take place in the U.S. This is just an example of a minor thing that too many people are spending too much time and effort arguing about and ignoring the serious problems.

The truth is that both the rich and the not so rich pay exactly what the House and Senate have them pay by law. If anyone does not like what someone else is paying, let them do what the Constitution states that they can do – “Petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Beyond that, let us be concerned with the real problems that exist.

7 years ago

Social Security introduced by FDR in 1930’s, only 1% of first 1400.00 in earnings to be considered, program was voluntary. Now we pay 7.65% of our income to SS, mandatory participation. All money paid to SS was to be tax deductible, not anymore. Money was to be in an independent trust fund not to be used for any other government program, moved to the general fund by LBJ and his democratic congress. Annuity payments were not to be taxed.
This was changed under Clinton with Al Gore casting the deciding vote as president of the Senate. We now are
taxed on 85% of our SS payments received. The real topper to all of this is in 1978 Jimmy Carter and the democratic congress decided if an immigrant came to this country at age 65 they would received SS payments having never paid
a dime into the system.

The low information voters believe them and have no clue who has consistently been screwing them out of their SS for years.

7 years ago
Reply to  Ronnie

Another person who has a strong knowledge of history and understands who has been enacting regressive policies against the American people for decades. Congratulations Ronnie!

7 years ago

The question arises… Do you live in Washington D.C. or one of the islands controlled by them.? Were you born in Washington D.C. or one of the islands (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.? Were born to a family from Washington D.C or the Islands? and finally, Are you employed by the federal government or elected to a post there? If not, then you are considered a State Citizen or an Amercan National. As such the latter two are not required to pay any federal taxes unless they volunteer to do so. The fact that some people were affected by the 14th Amendment such as the freed slaves of the Civil War.But, there is a question as to it’s validity due to it not passing by the 3/4ths of the Senate required. In other words the 14th Amendment may not even be legal. The problem has been that most people are ignorant to that fact. As is written, when you become 18, you can make a choice to not pay any taxes to the federal government. The one exception to this was during the 2nd World War where we were asked to voluntarily pay taxes to help with the war effort. It was for two years. But when one gets into the habit of doing something like this they forget it was a temporary thing for just those two years. Keep in mind the word “voluntarily”. Also, the IRS is not a part of the federal government. They are a third pary debt collector. They are part of the Puerto Rican government and also have been hired to work with the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Do your research on this. Don’t just take my word for it.

Glenna McGrain
7 years ago
Reply to  Rob

I just read Rob’s comments on voluntarily paying taxes which I studied all and knew this but ended up with a lot of penalty, interest and back taxes, because the IRS which only is an administrative agency enforced us or we would be jailed or loose all we worked for. We did loose a lot.

Rudy Treml
7 years ago

We need to eliminate all income tax in the USA on people and businesses. Raise money to run our Government with a National consumption tax ( sales tax ) like the States use. Inturn, the people who spend the most money will pay the most taxes – so very progressive. But, tax all goods and services with no exceptions which takes the politians out of the equation since they like to use the tax code to raise funds for their campaigns. Work out a system where everyone gets a tax break on the initial national sales tax which mirrors the current standard deduction in the current income tax system. And lets fund SS and medicare with the national consumption tax so seniors are protected. Does this sound difficult ? Answer, NO! Why? Because the bill is already written and is in Congress for review. Check it out yourself — the FAIRtax HR-25, S-155. When you understand the Bill, you will demand your elected representative support it!

7 years ago
Reply to  Rudy Treml

So as I understand your position, you want a national sales tax on everything, with no deductions,. Then build in a tax deduction that mirrors the standard income tax deduction. So much for your fairness approach. Yes very progressive indeed. Obviously this latter part being designed to attract support from lower income groups, who envision not getting ripped off by the government again once this fair tax is enacted. At least initially until the plan is put inot effect. Then like the VAT taxes employed throughout Europe and that were set at low initial tax rates and many exemptioms ir carve-outs for specific groups or items, the plan will need to be “modified” to reflect any revenue shortfalls or spending hikes deemed necessay by the government. If you want to promote your magic bullet tax plan, that is perfectly fine. Just understand that what is initially proposed or even enacted won’t stay that way very long.

Yes, I read the fair tax bills, as well as the books pushing this model. The big selling point being emphasized is end of the IRS and the pre-bate. Let me ask you two questions.

Our government has become ever-more “progressive” over the last several decades. So when was the last time the federal government completely eliminated any major agency or department or relinquished any power back to the people once the government had it?

When was the last time a tax plan was enacted that did not morph, over time, to be either a higher rate or impact more of the public than originally promised?

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

PAULE, I thought I was about done after security posting to you and HAM on the previous article, but, to answer your questions, never and never.
We have a chicken/egg/fox in hen house situation. What would the proper procedure be, getting rid of the fox that eats the chickens as soon as they hatch and reducing algebraically the nations’ spending and Administrational departments, or getting more chickens for the pot by including everyone in the exploitation pot, or producing more eggs to increase the base from which the governments’ programs are financed, either by levying taxes on more people or getting out of the way of enterprise so as to improve the economy? Then there is the problem of all those visiting skinny chickens who lay less eggs while consuming resources they haven’t provided funding for while transhipping some of their chicken feed back home to help support those skinny chickens they left behind, thereby reducing the chicken feed for all us native chickens. What to do first?
How about getting rid of those agencies that make excessive rules for the flock–oh, but that would require the foxes to initiate. They can’t even get serious about abandoning the FED. That would disturb all those international foxes that rely on central banks to accomplish all that economic central planning.
Damn, everyone still gets hung up on the problems with no clue as how to fix anything. Why do we not educate the largest contingent of the public that we can to, over time–a long and trying time, reverse the trends and gradually replace the members of Congress with Constitutionalists while trying to get in office a Constitutionalist President, those who will be proud to be obligated to their Oath of office?
Any other valid and possible solutions are welcome, but that seems to be the most likely to have positive effect short of another revolution.

7 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Exactly! There are no magic shortcuts to the hole we’be dug ourselves into as a nation. The cliimb out, if one is still possible, will entail a lot of effort and a long-term focus from everyone. The longer people cling to the notion that everything can be fixed just by doing X (some simple, single shot fix), the less likely we’ll be able to turn this ship around.

John Wood
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Everyone wants to tinker with the Fairtax, “why don’t they do this or that” , the plan was written after millions were put into research. Taxpayers were asked for input and while it’s not “perfect” It certainly beats what we have now. I believe the best part is that it gives the power back to the people and away from a government that uses the tax code, to manipulate and punish as well as a means of rewarding those that they they see fit. With the Fairtax you realize economic freedom. The Fairtax is nothing like the VAT of Europe. Why do you have to have deductions ? Since the income tax will be gone, that is like having a cupon for 25 percent off a loaf of bread, But when you get to the store you find that the loaf of bread is free and you bitch about not being able to use your cupon. Either you haven’t read the Bill or you are incapable of understanding it. Read (slowly & thoroughly) the entire Fairtax Bill as it was written before you make assumptions about something that you don’t truly understand.

7 years ago

Most of the later comments in this article have validity, but my comment here deals only with the first premise that says millionaires and billionaires aren’t paying their fair share.

So let me get this straight:

A millionaire pays “only” 22%, which equals $220,000.00.

A pensioner at $42K pays an “excessive” 28%, which equals $11,760.00.

Gimme a break!

Even at the lower rate, that single millionaire is STILL paying a total almost as much as 19 of the “overburdened” pensioners.

For that, the millionaire deserves a break I think. And maybe it’s we pensioners who aren’t paying our fair share.

I joined AMAC because I thought they supported conservative ideologies, but the first premise of this article is a rehash of the whining class-envy perpetrated by the Socialist/Liberal agenda.

Is AMAC becoming just another front for the Liberal Democratic Party, like the AARP? Somebody please let me know now so I can immediately cancel my membership if that turns out to be true.

God Bless America

7 years ago
Reply to  Gavin


I think the way to look at AMAC, after being a member for a few years now, is that it is a more conservative alternative to AARP. AARP is of course at this point is an openly progressive (socialist), pro-Democrat organization. So you’ll know exactly what AARP’s positions are on any issue by simply by listening to the daily White House briefings Josh Earnest gives. AARP’s positions align word for word on everything.

AMAC, from my perspective, is more what I would define as somewhat right of center organization They are certainly to the right of say Boehner and McConnell on most issues, but definitely not what I would consider strict Constitutional conservatives. I think that is what you were expecting or at least hoping for. So was I originally. Am I right?

In my view, success should try to be emulated, not either punished, via punitive taxation or regulatory policies, or vilified as the Socialist /Communists so often do. I still believe most people want to better themselves and their children. To be able to be financially independent and have more control of their lives and more choices in life. To do that, one obviously has to learn from those that have succeeded. Not spend their time listening to those who just want to take from someone else or preach the standard class warfare, politics of envy nonsense.

There are good articles here and not so good articles. It varies from week to week and subject to subject. On some issues, AMAC is more conservative than others. Again, that’s due to where they fall in the spectrum. So you should stick around for a while to do a better evaluation of how well AMAC lines up with what you’re looking for. The membership of AMAC is also highly diverse. You’ll find everything from both social conservatives to fiscal conservatives to moderates, who still think more compromise with Democrats will lead to things getting better not worse, to even a bunch of socialist trolls, who visit regularly to regurgitate the Progressive talking points from MSNBC.

Does this help?

7 years ago
Reply to  Gavin

Gavin, you need to unbutton your belly-button! You have your head shoved so far in that you can’t see what’s going on around you. I would gladly pay $220,000.00 of $1,000,000.00 rather than $11,760.00 of $42,000.00!
I can live quite well on $780,000.00 and let you try to live on $30,240.00.The millionaire can invest some of his $780,000.00 and increase his income while the poor schmuck struggling along on $30,000.00 has a tough time trying to make ends meet!

7 years ago
Reply to  Gavin


Using your same mathematical comparison, the millionaire may pay 19 times as much in taxes but makes 24 times as much money as the “overburdened” pensioners.. You think this is fair?

PS: I’m a hard core Southern Republican.

7 years ago
Reply to  Gavin

A millionaire is left with $780,000 and the $42k guy is left with $30,240

Give me a break!

John Reid
7 years ago
Reply to  Gavin


42,000 less 11,600 = 30,400

You should try living on that as a single person. Try again as a married with children family. I agree with you that the wealthy and financially successful should not be punished. But you offered no solution for over-taxing the poor and middle class.

Throw in home ownership and states and municipalities suck the final breath out of poor and middle class with onerous penalizing property taxes.

Beyond that what kind of logic could our legislators (keepers) have used when approving taxation of any government pension. Military pensions are taxed too.

Doug Ross
7 years ago

When I retired and began receiving the Social Security benefits for which I had paid FICA taxes for almost 50 years, I was unaware of the income tax consequences. After paying income taxes on my Social Security benefits, I sent an email to AMAC, Senator Cornyn, Senator Cruz and Representative Williams asking for an explanation of the income taxes on Social Security benefits. Representative Williams’ office responded and provided a link to the Social Security Administration website. The website provided the desired data and the history behind those taxes.

These taxes are taxes on the FICA taxes that those that receive Social Security benefits paid. Those taxes are unfair and should be deleted from the income tax code immediately. Furthermore, those members of Congress that support these taxes should be voted out of office and replaced with those that have concern for tax payers fairness. It will be extremely difficult to find replacement candidates because candidates from both political parties are proposing measures to further tax retired citizens.

7 years ago


Syd Wallace
7 years ago
Reply to  HARRY B

If I am not mistaken your social security, 50% paid by you and 50% by your employer is paid pre taxed. You don’t pay for SS retirement benefits while working. But, I totally agree with you that they are raping us. Something is going to have to give, or the whole nation is doomed.

D Huff
7 years ago
Reply to  Syd Wallace


I am afraid you are wrong about no paying SS benefits while working. Of you FICA taxes
withheld from you pay, 6.2% goes for SS benefits, and then you pay taxes again
once you start collecting your checks once you retire.

Larry Walters
7 years ago

This is just another way an income tax system squashes Americans. An income tax system only benefits those in D.C. and their friends, the very wealthy and large corporations who pay millions of dollars to tax lobbyists to see to it that there is special tax breaks for those with money and contacts.
We can eliminate all of this nonsense by hounding our representatives to pass H.R. 25 (House) and S. 155 (Senate), the FairTax bills. Then and only then will there be action to repeal the 16th amendment to eliminate taxing of our incomes and closing all loop hole and credits which most of us can’t take advantage of.

Diana Erbio
7 years ago

Has anyone looked at Rand Paul’s tax plan? It looked pretty fair to me, especially because it cut out the carve outs for the chosen.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  Diana Erbio

Hi Diana. Yes, and having done so, it does show his better understanding in the economics and taxing area.
While I believe his ideas and positions overall are most in line with mine, there is one massive problem. Having received his e-mails and reports concerning his achievements in overabundance–to the point of being a pest, and watching him attempt to debate (he does quite well in solo), being strident and unlikably out of control, makes it unlikely that he can win the nomination.
If you recall his exchange with “Chunky Cris Crusty” where they both looked bad, Dr. Paul’s seemed the inferior in presentation. Looked like a fat bully picking on a squeely runt. Neither looked Presidential.
Who will eventually get my vote is still on hold –still waiting to decide which non-establishment candidate to choose.
Being all that as it may, it still remains that choosing the “right” President will not result in a quick fix of all the nations problems. There can be no man or woman as “Savior.” We still need a Congress that abides the Constitution and accepts responsibility instead of unlawfully delegating it to some Administrative department of unaccountable civil servant bureaucrats.

John Wood
7 years ago

The thing about the Fair Tax, that people do not get is that when Seniors spend savings now weather it is from a Roth IRA or not you are paying an embedded tax of about 25 percent you just don’ realize it. Every person that handles the merchandise that you buy, pays income tax and that is passed directly along to you. So with the Fair Tax that goes away. “No income Tax” And the fair Tax is included in the price you pay. So if a product costs 100 dollars now it will still cost 100 Dollars, but no income tax and no tax on savings or dividends. This would be the greatest gift to you grand kids you could possibly give. Not to mention the tremendous boost for the economy. And you would have to hide in a hole to avoid getting a job.

7 years ago
Reply to  John Wood

Also, no death tax under the Fair Tax Plan. And no taxed mandatory withdrawals from retirememt plans.

Jim Monson
7 years ago
Reply to  John Wood

John, I like the Fair Tax Plan. Note: Presently all new goods and services have hidden tax embedded into the price. With the Fair Tax Plan these hidden taxes would go away. Thus, the price new goods and services should go down making them more competitive both here and overseas. Also, your pay check will increase, even without a pay raise, when they no longer withhold all the federal, state and social security amounts. Fair Tax Plan is a consumption tax only to be added when you purchase new goods and services. Imagine: No longer worrying if you did all that you were required under the present, old, unfair tax code. Imagine: How many trillions in investment funds will come back home when investors don’t have to pay huge taxes on profits/capital gains. Imagine: How many new jobs, jobs, jobs will be opened up with the return of these investment funds. Imagine: How much tax fraud will go away because we don’t have to worry about taxes on income. Imagine: IRS will go away as well. I think the FAIR TAX PLAN time has come.

7 years ago
Reply to  Jim Monson

A correction to Jim Monson’s comment. The FairTax only eliminates federal taxes, state taxes are not in play for the FairTax legislation. Otherwise Jim is correct.
If you have questions about the FairTax, email to No Income Tax

7 years ago
Reply to  Jim Monson

Maybe Lois Lerner will go away too – to share a cell with the Hillabeest on Devil’s Island.

7 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

Chuck- A double great idea !

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x