Katherine Harris on Tax Reform Republican Representative (FL-13)

Supports Fair Tax: 23% sales tax to replace income tax

HARRIS: You also don't have to pay the Social Security tax; the Medicare tax, corporate taxes, the death tax, self-employment tax; gift tax, capital gains tax; no more tax audits, and all the major headaches of April 15. I advocate the fair tax because I want to cut taxes. The fair tax is a vehicle to consolidate [tax cuts]. America has the most onerous tax system in the world. I've advocated that I will take the fair tax system to the people of Florida so we can debate it, and we can have an educated electorate, and we'll work out any obstacles they envision.

Income tax requires 5 billion hours for annual compliance

HARRIS: There would be a 22% decrease in prices because of embedded costs due to income taxes. The fair tax would not charge people at the poverty level, by paying a `prebate' so it's revenue-neutral. It would result in growth in our economy. Imagine keeping 100% of your paycheck, without withholding, and without 5 billion hours of tax compliance annually. It's worthy of debate.

Q: What's wrong with abolishing the IRS and going to a 23% sales tax?

NELSON: The average taxpayer would be paying $4,500 more per year in taxes under that plan than what they do now. 95% of all Americans would end up paying more tax under that plan.

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.

• Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
• Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
• Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
• Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
• Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
• Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)

Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification.

• Extension of Family Tax Provisions
• Repeals the scheduled reduction (15 to 10 percent) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005, of the refundability of the child tax credit.
• Extends through 2005 the increased exemption from the alternative minimum tax for individual taxpayers.
• Extends through 2005 the following expiring tax provisions:
  1. the tax credit for increasing research activities;
  2. the work opportunity tax credit;
  3. the welfare-to-work tax credit;
  4. the authority for issuance of qualified zone academy bonds;
  5. the charitable deduction for donations by corporations of computer technology and equipment used for educational purposes;
  6. the tax deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers;
  7. the expensing of environmental remediation costs;
  8. the designation of a District of Columbia enterprise zone

Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit.

Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty.

Rated 60% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes.

Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.