[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2166-H2167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE FREEDOM FLAT TAX ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, during these last 2 weeks back home in my 
district, I had a lot of discussion about income tax, because, of 
course, April 15 fell during our recess this year. A lot of people are 
asking me, what has ever happened to the concept of fundamental tax 
reform in the House of Representatives? Why can we not as the

[[Page H2167]]

American people create a system that promotes fairness and economic 
prosperity by treating everyone the same, regardless of income or 
occupation, and removing special preferences and disincentives for 
economic growth that characterize our current IRS Tax Code? They also 
ask, when will it be time to eliminate our current code's bias against 
savings and investment?
  Currently interest rates are at historic lows. It is hard enough to 
convince people to put money in a savings account, because it doesn't 
pay very much, and, on top of that, you pay at the highest rate on the 
money you earn on that savings account, certainly a disincentive for 
savings. When savings are no longer taxed twice, I believe people will 
save and invest more, leading to higher productivity and greater take-
home pay.
  Mr. Speaker, a year ago, my third month in Congress, I introduced a 
bill, H.R. 1783, called The Freedom Flat Tax Act. The Freedom Flat Tax 
Act allows people to opt into a progrowth tax system that restores 
fairness, simplicity and efficiency to our current Tax Code. It 
replaces our current costly tax system with a single-rate system that, 
most importantly, only taxes income one time.
  This flat tax could be phased in over a 3-year period, with a 19 
percent rate for the first 2 years, with a 17 percent rate in 
subsequent years. There would be no deductions or loopholes. It will 
allow some personal exemptions, including $5,500 for each dependent.
  The key is this flat tax was a little different from other flat taxes 
that have been introduced in this Congress. The most important 
difference is that this fundamental change in tax structure is actually 
within our reach. It is within our reach this year, if we were to 
choose to do it.
  It is optional. If a family has constructed their savings or their 
life so that they do well under the IRS code, they are welcome to stay 
in the IRS code. But if they find that they would like simplicity and 
efficiency in their life, they are allowed the option to elect into a 
simple, fairer system; a simple, fairer, single-rate system. There 
would be no ability to move in between the two systems once the 
election has been made. It would be permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, back in my district in Dallas, there is a financial 
columnist who writes an article for the Dallas Morning News named Scott 
Burns. He is certainly no great friend of the Republican Party. He has 
been critical of us on several occasions. But he wrote an article that 
dealt with home ownership and the home mortgage deduction, and you do 
get a lot of concern from people who say, gosh, I get my home mortgage 
deduction now, and I would hate to give that up.
  But Mr. Burns' study showed across the country, the amount that you 
are able to save off your income taxes varies greatly depending upon 
where you live. Around Dallas, Texas, the average homeowner's savings 
over 3 years' time is about $1,000. Down in San Antonio, Texas, it is 
even less. It is about $100. In Santa Barbara, California, it is 
$42,000, so clearly a resident of Santa Barbara, California, would 
probably like to stay in the current IRS code, but my constituents 
around Dallas should be given the option of a code that makes more 
sense for them.
  It would be enormously easier to figure current tax bill under a 
single-rate system. Simply subtract and pay 17 percent of your wages 
after the personal exemptions.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us in this body to take the 
concept of fundamental fairness in the Tax Code to the next level. I 
know there are others on my side of the aisle who argue for a Federal 
retail sales tax. I can tell you there are parts of that that seem 
agreeable to me as well, but the reality is the implementation of that 
type of tax would be costly, and it would be disruptive in the economy.
  Our current situation, people who fill out the 1040-EZ form spend 
3\1/2\ hours to do their taxes; The regular form, they will spend 13\1/
2\ hours doing their taxes. Billions of hours are spent complying with 
Tax Code forms instead of being with your family.
  The current Tax Code is expensive. The average household pays $2,000 
a year in compliance costs. For the year 2001 alone, Americans lost 
$183 billion in opportunity costs instead of working on money-producing 
activity for themselves or their families.
  As I stated before, the current Tax Code punishes hard work and 
doubly punishes savings. We pay the government to take our hard-earned 
money off our hands just so they can punish us for job-creating 
behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, the time is now, the power is within our grasp. I urge 
my colleagues to take a look at H.R. 1783, and let us see if we cannot 
make that a reality for the American people next year.

                          ____________________