World Net Daily published an interesting article today on Tom Hansen's 0-0-0 plan. Here is how it works:
Replace the current federal tax code with a 0 percent personal income tax, a 0 percent national sales tax and a 0 percent corporate income tax.
If the government needs money, they can confiscate ten percent of the budget of each state. This will eliminate the personal and business income tax tyranny, slash collection costs to almost zero, and restore privacy to the public.
Each state will determine it’s own budget so there will be no need for expensive legislation, unnecessary jailer expenses, and costly measures of income. The states will fight the feds for the collection details and amounts so it will cause more voters to carefully select their state legislators.
I have added an intermediate step for those who believe that the 0-0-0 plan is politically impossible.
It is called the “Fair Tax”.
Fair Tax is the best way to set the economy on a 0-0-0 trajectory. It will eliminate the income tax just like 0-0-0. It will restore privacy to the public just like 0-0-0. And it will make 0-0-0 politically possible.
I see what you are saying.
No Constitutional Amendment would be necessary because setting the sales tax to zero is not the same as prohibiting it. The tax is zero today so why can't it go back to zero sometime after Fair Tax is enacted? Why would we need to take away the Constitutional power to enact excise taxes?
We should not repeal Fair Tax after it is enacted. H.R. 25 would be the active legislation during 0-0-0. Congress would always have the ability to raise sales taxes from 0 to anything else if they found the action politically acceptable. Wasn't the raising of money the supposed reason for switching from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution?
We cannot eliminate the ability of Congress to raise money. There will always be a possible financial need to fund emergency actions or a declared war. But, yes, it should require Congressional approval to alter the excise tax amount. But it would probably be politically difficult to raise the tax due to targeting of those who want to do it.
My only reason for responding to you on this is that there are many people who do not want the Fair Tax because they they claim that it would legitimize uncontrolled spending. I am saying that passing Fair Tax would make it easier to eventually reduce the amount of tax to zero than any other proposal. Although I've not yet used the phrase 0-0-0, we have a few new FT members today because of my use of the 0-0-0 concept.
No tax will be collected on sales when there is no rate. The end result is the same as prohibiting a tax on sales. You better tell the IRS there is no rate on federal sales(excise) taxes. Below is the link to the IRS listing the various types of federal excise taxes including motor fuel, Leaking underground storage tanks, Electronic Data Interchange(EDI), wagering, highway use by trucks, idling trucks(12%), Telephone tax(3%) etc... The 0-0-0 plan would summarily eliminate those Constitutional taxes without the Amendment process in Article V.
Those who claim The FairTax will legitimize uncontrolled spending are presenting a specious argument. Congress would need to fund an increase in spending by a corresponding increase in taxes. Raising the national sales tax rate too high would result in a lessening of consumption by the people. Less consumption will reduce the amount of tax collected by the Treasury. Less tax collected will force them to reduce spending. This is a concept detailed in founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper #21.
The FairTax movement was not formed to be the means to an end for some other alternative tax plan to the federal income tax code. It was formed to be the end of the federal income tax code. The FairTax has been, since its inception in 1995, the only alternative tax plan to the federal income tax code. Any other alternative tax plan is outside the scope of The FairTax movement.
Overall, I find this to be a very interesting discussion. Since the FairTax would be collected by the states, I don't think I have a problem with returning to Article 1 section 2 of the constitution; in fact, I find that to be one of the most appealing aspects of the FairTax. Just imagine, each state will have the ability to decide just how much money they will send to Washington as opposed to Washington deciding how much they will send back to the states (can you spell 10th amendment?). In addition, the FairTax would fully restore Article 1 section 9 of the constitution as well.
Am I off base here or am I missing something?
Thanks for your open-mindedness here and on the other related articles about Cain.
I do not understand your comment about Article 1 Section 9, but all I can say is that passage of the Fair Tax is all that would be needed. We will start with a sales tax at 23%. Then Congress can reduce that to 0 if enough of us keep up the heat.