No more IRS?

Jedah Doma

Chroma Ma' Doma!,
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
9,902
Analysis: GOP push for consumption tax

By CHRISTIAN BOURGE, UPI Congressional and Policy Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 (UPI) -- A report Monday that in his upcoming book House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., endorses the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service and replacement of the current tax code with a national consumption tax or flat tax as a top GOP priority in a second Bush administration should come as no surprise, considering that conservative Republicans have been pushing such ideas for years.

The Drudge Report's brief on Republican plans for eliminating the federal revenue-collection agency and the laws it enforces in favor of a national sale tax, value-added tax or even a flat tax rate on income quotes Hastert in his new tome being released Wednesday -- "Speaker: Lessons from Forty Years in Coaching and Politics" -- as praising such schemes not only as a means to increase domestic productivity and grow the U.S. economy, but also as a way to make the IRS an irrelevant part of the federal government.

Although Hastert's office did not return calls for comment on the report, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, offered a preview of the House GOP leadership's post-election tax agenda in a March speech in which he said the Republicans are determined to repeal the federal income tax.

Long an advocate of a national sales tax, a confident DeLay told a conference of tax lobbyists that House Republicans will have hearings and push the issue in 2005 and 2006.

He said that replacing the income tax, payroll and other related federal taxes would provide more money for people to use, and he endorsed a proposal from Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., for a national sale tax.

However, he added that even a flat tax would be better than the current federal tax model.

Whether or not eliminating the IRS and replacing it with some form of easier-to-collect consumption tax or a uniform tax rate will be "a domestic centerpiece" of the second Bush term remains to be seen, but such alternative tax schemes are nothing new and have long been a controversial wish of numerous prominent, conservative Republicans.

In 1996 Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes championed a 17-percent flat-tax scheme, garnering a great deal of attention and arguably making it the most prominent of the various alternative tax-system ideas floated by conservative Republicans over the last several decades.

Under Forbes' plan, taxes on interest from investment income such as dividends and capital gains, along with other forms of unearned income such as inheritances, would be eliminated, something that would certainly benefit wealthy individuals like the former candidate, who inherited his wealth.

Not that the idea is only favored by conservatives; nor was Forbes the first politician to back the idea.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown, a liberal Democrat, was a proponent of the flat tax during his failed 1992 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Conservative economists such as Arthur Laffer have also pushed the idea for decades.

More recently, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has backed a uniform 20-percent tax on earned income, with similar exemptions on unearned income.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, continues to promote such ideas as a conservative activist since leaving the lower House of Congress.

The idea of a national sales tax or value-added tax has gained greater favor with some conservatives in recent years, but those ideas, along with other tax-simplification schemes like the flat tax, have remained mostly wishful thinking on the part of conservatives.

Even as Republican leaders in the GOP-led House, Senate and Bush White House have praised the concept of tax simplification over the last 3 1/2 years, the U.S tax code has been expanded by over 10,000 pages as the Bush tax cuts and other changes -- part of a total of 227 changes to the code -- were implemented.

In addition, the House and Senate Republican leadership have been strong backers of the corporate-tax overhaul bill currently pending in Congress.

The measure, which started out as a simple bill to repeal a tax break for exporting companies deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization, has turned into a special-interest tax bonanza in order to make the bill acceptable to more members.

The conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill is that any corporate lobbyist worth his salt got his client a break in the bill.

"These guys have added 10,000 pages to the tax code over the last three years," said one Democratic Leadership aide. "Do you really think they can get it together and repeal the whole code?"

For their part, some Democrats are not taking the pending Republican tax push lying down.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., gave a speech last month pressing the case for simplification of the tax code and promising to make the issue a Democratic caucus priority, offering a plan that differed little from the most recent simplification plans from the GOP not involving wholesale repeal of the tax code.

It is important to note that House Democratic Congressional Conference Chairman Robert Matsui of California and others, including Republican members, acknowledge that changing the code is an extremely difficult challenge.

The last major set of wholesale changes made to U.S. tax law intended to simplify the code was enacted in 1986.

Although Monday's report on Hastert's book was met with little attention on Capitol Hill, the Democratic National Committee released a statement deriding the flat tax as an attempt to shift the federal tax burden to the middle class.

They argue that lowering taxes on the wealthy citizens who pay higher rates under the current progressive tax systems means many poorer citizens will pay higher portions of their income to the federal government.

In addition, they decried the losses of tax breaks for home mortgages and healthcare expenses provided under current law -- losses that have led some conservatives to label the home-mortgage deduction the "third rail" of tax reform.

Some conservatives were emboldened by news last fall that former Iraqi Provisional Authority administrator Paul Bremer was expanding neoconservative nation-building doctrine to include conservative tax orthodoxy by establishing a 15-percent flat-rate tax in Iraq.

However, Bremer's tax efforts did not actually preclude progressive rates but only capped them at 15 percent and surely are open to interpretation by Iraq's burgeoning self-government apparatus.

Several former Soviet-bloc nations, long a favorite of conservative anti-communist crusaders within the GOP, have become a haven of sorts for the flat tax.

Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Slovakia, along with Russia itself, have all embraced flat-tax plans as their means to collect taxes from personal earnings.

The Russians, for one, have reported increases in revenue intake vs. their old, complex, higher-rate system.

While the idea of a flat tax or consumption-based tax system still seems like a pie-in-the-sky dream on the domestic front, some economists say we may be closer than it seems at first glance.

Many liberal-minded economists argue that the Bush tax cuts and other GOP efforts to lower taxes on capital gains and investment income have resulted in a tax system that is more regressive than has traditionally been the case.

Since the ultra-rich have higher levels of investment income than those with lower incomes, they end up paying a lower share of taxes, percentage-wise.

But many conservatives dispute the validity of such arguments, and even if it is the case, this by no means is the sort of lower-tax haven that they wish for.

It also remains to be seen if Republicans will be in the position to give it to them anytime in the near future.

--

(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)


Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
 

slerch666

updyke,
Joined
May 23, 2002
Posts
8,984
I'm not reading all that. I'm calling the typical N-G.com attention span and only putting in my $.02.

A flat percentage tax is good. If we all pay the same % from our income, I'm for it. Inheritance and all that crap should still be taxed, since as the article points out, a lot of rich fucks inherit their money.

As far as a national sales tax, fuck that. That's bullshit. So I have to pay my state's sales tax, PLUS a national tax whenever I buy something? If they eliminate income tax, it may not be so bad, but I doubt with the economy we have now, with the way it's structured, that this would be a good thing.

My $.02, plus tax.
 

Mike Shagohod

Stray Dog Grunt
20 Year Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Posts
13,947
The IRS is an illegal organization anyhow, and have comitted more acts of emotional terrorism than any other, but since they're NEVER in the wrong though, it's okay to ruin peoples lives. I remember in history we had the Boston Tea Party for a reason, and the men with mettle did what was to be done and a nation was formed... thus I'd be glad to see such a decimation of an organization in the first phases of returning to a GRD. It's how the nation was supposed to be ran from the ground up not from the top down. *as for the TAXES, well if GOD the almighty only asks 10% of a persons earnings as a Tithe to their respective church body that should be more than sufficient for "Mortal Man".

...but then what do I know, I'm just one of the many of millions of Americans who IS THE GOVERNMENT and they work for me not the other way around, sad both organizations, civil servants and elected officials forget this... but corrupution is at every turn, and token citzenry is on the rise due to Disinformation in the school systems and the absolute laziness of the current generations who are the future. :( *Thus on the flip side of the coin I guess we all get what we put into it.

the future is a bleak part of a shit storm indeed with or without the IRS.

MERCENARY X99
 

FeelGood

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Posts
17,794
Why the fuck does the government get to tax us anyways?

Why don't they raise the money like any other corporation?

Are they not capabile of honest work?
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
EvilWasabi said:
Why the fuck does the government get to tax us anyways?

Why don't they raise the money like any other corporation?

Are they not capabile of honest work?

You would appreciate the Wild Wild West, EvilWasabi man. All questions are addressed to the six-shooters in your belt first.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
28,936
slerch666 said:
I'm not reading all that. I'm calling the typical N-G.com attention span and only putting in my $.02.
Me too.

Seems to me getting rid of the IRS would result in putting a shitload more people out of work, thus f-ing up the economy even more. I realize I have nothing to back up this half-baked assessment, but it seems like that is what would happen.

Merc, the idea is you pay taxes for the common good. Something that nobody seems to care about unless you force them. You probably don't care about roads and schools and whatnot, so to put it in terms you can relate to, what kind of bows and arrows do you think our military would be using if the government collected no taxes?
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
slerch666 said:
A flat percentage tax is good. If we all pay the same % from our income, I'm for it. Inheritance and all that crap should still be taxed, since as the article points out, a lot of rich fucks inherit their money.

Not that I fall into either of these categories, but what is inherently wrong with being rich or inheriting your money?

SouthtownKid said:
Seems to me getting rid of the IRS would result in putting a shitload more people out of work, thus f-ing up the economy even more. I realize I have nothing to back up this half-baked assessment, but it seems like that is what would happen.

That's one part of it, but I think the workers of the IRS losing their jobs would be relatively minor compared to the overall impact.

SouthtownKid said:
Merc, the idea is you pay taxes for the common good. Something that nobody seems to care about unless you force them. You probably don't care about roads and schools and whatnot, so to put it in terms you can relate to, what kind of bows and arrows do you think our military would be using if the government collected no taxes?

I agree, but the way that taxes are collected is just ridiculously and needlessly complicated. Why not just charge a flat rate for federal, and another flat rate for state taxes? I realize that some people will do dumb things and thus be subject to extra taxation, but that could just be added to the flat rate.

If people could understand what the government is actually charging them, rather than having 73 different taxes being charged that we don't even know about, they might actually start to trust the government. Well, actually, they'd probably start to totally despise the government, but at least they could agree that they're honest about something.
 

Mike Shagohod

Stray Dog Grunt
20 Year Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Posts
13,947
SouthtownKid said:
Me too.

Seems to me getting rid of the IRS would result in putting a shitload more people out of work, thus f-ing up the economy even more. I realize I have nothing to back up this half-baked assessment, but it seems like that is what would happen.

Merc, the idea is you pay taxes for the common good. Something that nobody seems to care about unless you force them. You probably don't care about roads and schools and whatnot, so to put it in terms you can relate to, what kind of bows and arrows do you think our military would be using if the government collected no taxes?

I don't have a problem paying taxes at all, I have a problem paying taxes to an organization that really doesn't have any checks & balances is the thing. We've gone from a nation literally forged from the fires of revolution and the very "Wild Wild West" someone else mentioned, where a man took care of his homestead or died trying... where the citizens themselves actually had to BE INVOLVED at their own community levels and took care of business as it effected them at those levels, to the just the opposite. *Now it's all about paying taxes for anything and everything {heck prostituiton would be legal if the IRS could tax "Teh Pussy"} right up to and even after death. I happen to work in Auto Recovery Specialism {nice Repo Man... err... sort of.} and most of the work I do is INTEL gathering and skip tracing. What I find odd is this {Concerning the IRS}. Right now I'm tailing someone who owes $6,000 on the vehicle, AND owes $135,000 in back taxes, but the dude's a bitch to find. The guy moves more times in a given month than most people do who are in the military. Now my question is this?

Why does the IRS audit {i.e. make hell for someone} say a person who files regularly but might have messed up something, but no one's out looking for mr. transient? I can answer that one: Because it be too fuckin' hard to track this asshole down! So pick on the easy targets which 8 times out of 10 are the hard working law abiding citizens. I know a guy personally who had to prove he was who he said he was for 5 years, because a computer program stated he was dead? Then there's the cases like say someone in your family died and left behind $100,000 bucks in cash stashed away in some coffee cans beneath a bed or something. ---Guess what, unless you can prove that hard working uncle or whatever of yours WORKED for the money, it's automatically assumed the person's gains was of an illegal nature, so it becomes THE STATE'S money via the IRS until proven otherwise. *ILL-FUCKIN'-LEGAL nonsense. *Should we pay taxes to help fund this or that? Absolutely, but there needs to be some checks & balances as to when enough is enough, and not be Gestapo on someone's reputation "Just Because". Thus this is the reason I said I think the organization should be dissolved. The people en mass need to wake the fuck up and remember that even the elected officials WORK FOR US!

They answer to us not the other way around... and I am so sick and fuckin' tired of The Powers That Be making everyone fear them, and new laws being implemented "For our own good"... and this or that, while more taxes are paid up the ass. Bottom line is things are the way the are now because the average joe/jane is a fuck off degenerate who needs to have their ass whooped, or given the opportunity to forefit their citizenship and go to wherever they think it's going to be better, because it's all about the GRD {Grass Roots Democracy}. *It worked before and it can work now but it's up to people to give a fuck, but the far left and the agendas of the GODLESS U.N. have most people lining up for their place in "Victory Mansions" alright. Why work when MORE GOVERNMENT will give you a hand out? Let someone else bust ass for you while you reap the benefits. NO... There should be ONE BIG ASS TAX, and a few smaller ones, and that's it. If the nation needs more money then bring back industry to our own people within the nation and stop all the outsourcing of jobs to 3rd world nations to save a buck... or at least make a tariff on the very corporations that went overseas, and tax them so much it be cheaper to take care of our own. Money can and will be generated, but we've got to care about the road behind us and learn from it before we can run down the road in front of us. I shit on most of this gutless generation I'm sadly amongst but want no part of.

MERCENARY X99
 
Last edited:

BoriquaSNK

His Excellency BoriquaSNK,, The Ambassador of Appl
15 Year Member
Joined
May 9, 2003
Posts
4,705
Bullshit bluff. The GOP has been trying to get rid of the IRS for years. Dole campaigned with the flat tax and he failed miserably as well. It sounds wonderful on paper, but lets put it into perspective. Lets say the government issues a 15% flat tax rate on all income.

Biff Biffwell makes $1,000,000. He is taxed $150,000 and is left with 850,000 to spend and save.

Phil Smith makes $30,000 a year. At 15%, he is taxed $4500 and is left with a meager $25500 to support his entire family. Factor in health insurance, car insurance, mortgage payments, school / maybe college, this is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.

And so what if people get audited, it has to be done to make sure people pay their taxes. My advice is save your receipts.
 

Mike Shagohod

Stray Dog Grunt
20 Year Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Posts
13,947
BoriquaSNK said:
Bullshit bluff. The GOP has been trying to get rid of the IRS for years. Dole campaigned with the flat tax and he failed miserably as well. It sounds wonderful on paper, but lets put it into perspective. Lets say the government issues a 15% flat tax rate on all income.

Biff Biffwell makes $1,000,000. He is taxed $150,000 and is left with 850,000 to spend and save.

Phil Smith makes $30,000 a year. At 15%, he is taxed $4500 and is left with a meager $25500 to support his entire family. Factor in health insurance, car insurance, mortgage payments, school / maybe college, this is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.

And so what if people get audited, it has to be done to make sure people pay their taxes. My advice is save your receipts.

01> Yeah, I didn't delude myself into thinking that any disbanding of the IRS organization was going to happen, I just stated that I think it should be. What you say makes enough sense however, but the fact still remains that, that organization shouldn't even exist. It's sort of like {same difference here} how for the last 50 years or so the Supreme Court insitutes LAW, or makes LAWs when that was not the intended function of that branch. It was intended for it to judge on and carry out "Said Laws" that were already on the books having gone through the congressional body... yet today we see the Supreme Court actually mandating this or that. Different subject, Same Difference. *The IRS has no real checks or balances, and everyone pays or else there's hell to pay thus I'd say it's the most "in the open" Terrorist organization in known history, especially with the duress it has caused many, and I say that being one of the many Employers of their faction as I AM THE GOVERNMENT, just like you are and the person next to you and such. Yet it's the "Representatives" we elect into office who have a power position that has become so corrupt on so many levels that it's hard to see who's still on the up and up, and thus people are generally afraid, when they should realize they work for us and answer to us, not the other way around.

02> I do save my receipts {especially in my lines of work} and declare what I've been ordered to declare just like the next person. But that's my point exactly. I who will {and will always} bust ass and actually abide by the laws of the land to the best of my ability {let's face it we all speed on the freeway etc.} am the one along with any number of people who might get screwed over if their computers say this or that. And since we're not degenerate fuckoffs like one of the people I'm trailing in my line of work, a person dodging their responsibilities as they are now... who's the person they would fuck with first? THE EASIER PERSON TO FUCK WITH, that's who. And when we break down the definitions of the word "Terrorist" in our P.C. day and age what would that then make that organization? Yet they go unchecked. I'm not saying everyone who works for them is a bad person nor their aims evil, I'm saying that an organization that people pay up the ass to, and in many cases have had their lives ruined by only to learn it was a mistake on their part is not one of an effectual nature, and like anything else or group should be dissolved. We both know it'll probably never happen as the system has been in place for to long, thus we'll all just keep takin' it up the ass without lube. I abide by a law I as one of the governmental body does not agree with but am none the less out voted by the apathy of the masses, but it doesn't mean I will not say my piece when applicable, or have to eat shit and ask for seconds either.

MERCENARY X99
 

td741

, NOTE: Please add 16 points to his feedback., --
Joined
Jun 7, 2002
Posts
1,735
slerch666 said:
Inheritance and all that crap should still be taxed, since as the article points out, a lot of rich fucks inherit their money.

Not that I really care that much as I doubt I'll ever see an inheritance worth anything, add to the fact that I'm canadian so this wouldn't affect me anyway. ;)

I think the idea of not taxing inheritance is the fact that the money was previously taxed.

IE: You buy a house, and save money with the money that you've earned that was taxed. If whoever inherits your stuff gets taxed, the the same income would have been taxed more then once.
 
Top