The GOP’s “Abolish the IRS” Crackpots

Natural Born Conservative ^ | November 28, 2015 | Larry Walker II

[NaturalBornConservative]

I completely realize that telling the truth can elicit hatred. But here's some more truth for you.

The Internal Revenue Code, which you have probably never seen, let alone read, is technically only 5,368 pages. That's just the Code itself, not including the regulations, annotations to court cases, revenue rulings, explanatory material, and other IRS documents. If you strip out the indexes and other material which are not part of the Code its really only 5,084 pages.

The Income Tax Regulations, which are not technically part of the Code, but help to explain it amount to 13,880 pages. So where does your 73,954 figure come from?

The Hinckley spokeswoman directed us to a colorful chart by CCH that shows how the number of pages in one of its publications, "CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter," has increased over the years. Its 2011 edition has 72,536 pages.

But that publication isn't just the tax code. "That includes the code, regs, annotations to court cases, revenue rulings, explanatory material, other things that come out of the IRS that are not regulations," said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for the tax and accounting group at CCH. "But some politicians and media have picked that up and called it the code, which is not correct."

Politifact

[Iscool]

I never took it to mean that the IRS should be eliminated completely...The idea is to drastically reduce the scope of the IRS which will naturally reduce drastically the size of the organization...

[Tzfat]

Hmm, could it be the author is concerned about charitable contributions no longer being deductible?

I say no deductions. None. Not even for charity (although I am a big supporter). The good churches, synagogues, and charities will survive by teaching truth, and doing good. Right now they are muzzled because they are just like big business, in bed with the government.

[Lurking Libertarian]

How did those crackpot Founding Fathers get along without the IRS?! What wacko birds they were!

They didn't call it the "IRS," but the Treasury Department had a large tax-collecting bureaucracy since 1789.

[Jay Thomas]

Only 5368 pages...

I feel better now.

[ozzymandus]

I hope this Larry Walker isn’t the same Larry Walker I knew in college. What a D-bag.

[majormaturity]

The List of We Cant’s”:
We can’t abolish the IRS!
We can’t deport 12 million illegals!
We can’t eliminate the Fed!
We can’t be safe with so many guns!
Can you think of other “can’ts?”

[BfloGuy]

Since there will no longer be an IRS, not to mention three or four other agencies, would we simply forward more than 160 million checks to the White House?

No, you ninny. The Treasury will do fine.

[MasterGunner01]

If we abolished the IRS, what would these poor, overpaid, overperked, incredibly stupid people do for a living? Idea: we export them to Saudi Arabia to help out an “ally”. That will teach those Muslims!

[jaydee770]

“...With taxes of such fundamental concern...”

Are you asserting that the govt should never learn how to collect taxes more efficiently? That even with a simplified method of collecting revenue, the IRS should maintain it’s current bloated, inefficient, overwhelming bureaucracy? There should be no reduction in it’s heavy-handed, “D-student”, in at 9:30a and out by 3:30p, entitlement-minded, all-too-stereotypical federal employees?

All I can say is, “Opinions Vary”! *Drastically*!

[BushCountry]

Facts are tricky things... The 73,000 plus pages is what the government provides to businesses and citizens to navigate the tax code (The full text of an Internal Revenue Code section, with brief legislative history notes, is followed by the relevant committee reports in full text, final, temporary and proposed regulations, editorially prepared explanations, and annotations). Everything you need to understand the tax code and how it could affect you in the near future. No one, and I repeat no one understands the tax code or how to navigate it. It is a hot mess. You could call the IRS for a year and get a different answer to the same question.

Here is a nice chart of the documents growth.

http://www.cch.com/TaxLawPileUp.pdf

[Dr. Sivana]

a small business owner could wind up owing as much as 26% on his or her compensation. Yeah, good luck getting this passed without mass resistance!

Small business owners already get double-taxation, which pretty much starts at around 16% (Payroll taxes on both sides), and a successful small business can go past 26% pretty quickly, especially sole proprietorships.

The elimination of the 39% or whatever it is bracket would tend to bring money home.

Remaining tax collection functions can be devolved to other agencies, or to the states. Cruz himself or Congress can work out those aspects. Reagan's Kemp-Roth tax cut was certainly tweaked before it went into effect.

Cruz is a big picture free enterprise guy, and he is looking to come up with a system that will encourage a growth economy. All candidates are hamstrung by a crippling national debt.

[Dr. Sivana]

First there's Senator Ted Cruz, who might have a better shot if he used his real name,

If you want your piece to be taken seriously as sober analysis instead of partisan hectoring, you can avoid that. I do call the current Bush edition John Ellis Bush, but I don't pretend that it is other than polemic.

No one asked Edward M. Kennedy to not go by Ted, and those in the northeast called John F. Kennedy "Jack" or "Jackie". James Earl Carter was mentioned. How about William Jefferson Clinton, or Hercules R. Perot? James Quayle would be another. And let's not forget Willard Romney. Or Piyush Jindal.

The fact is, a LOT of people have nicknames that they use in their professional life. Quick! Without looking! What was "Lady Bird" Johnson's birth name? Would it really have helped Richard Nixon win in 1960 if his wife went by her real name (Thelma) rather than "Pat"? Why did Michael Sobran start calling himself "Joe" mid career? Why did Dodger centerfielder go by Rick, instead of his given name "Johnny"?

Ted Cruz is a Junior. His dad's name is still a public figure and was there first. My brother in law has always gone by his middle name, because he was always called by it because his legal first name was a concession to aggressive grandparents trying to keep a line going.

There are lots of legitimate reasons to go by a name like Ted instead of Rafael Eduardo Cruz Jr. It sure made his autograph sessions here in Georgia easier.

Now, it is a problem if you change your name for expediency (e.g. Gary Hartpence). Or in some cases, if you play games with your married name to improve your position (various iterations of Hillary Rodham Clinton).

It doesn't apply to a nickname you've used since college. And it doesn't apply to a man whose grandfather changed his surname from an ugly one (Drumpf) to a cool one (Trump).

[AndyMeyers]

Ted’s name is Rafael Edward Cruz he is not a junior. Since his father’s first name is also Rafael,Ted goes by Ted, a nickname for Edward as in Edward Kennedy being call Ted. I’ve met and spoken with Rafael Cruz several times. He is an outstanding public speaker, Ted gets it naturally. The Senator was the Keynote Speaker at my annual Breakfast this past January. He spoke for 45 minutes answering many questions without notes or a TelePrompTer. Truly brilliant.

[Dr. Sivana]

Thanks for the gentle correction. I forgot he wasn’t a junior. Having the same first name with the elder still active is still a potential problem, of course. I read Ted’s book where he goes into detail as to why he goes by Ted, and he temporary acrimony it created within parts of the family.

[NaturalBornConservative]

If you want your piece to be taken seriously as sober analysis instead of partisan hectoring, you can avoid that.

Which part of that was partisan? Which part was hectoring? And, which of the people you named is Hispanic? Or is the Latino Vote a moot point?

[NaturalBornConservative]

The effective tax rate on those making less than $100K is currently between -14% to 8% (minus 14 percent to 8 percent). For those making between $100K and $250K it's around 13%. And, the effective tax rate on those making $1M or more is around 23%. When you throw out deductions and apply a flat rate, you increase everyone's effective tax rate (i.e. total taxes paid as a percentage of gross income). There is a 39% tax bracket, but no one pays anything close to that as a percentage of gross income.

If you like tax increases, then have at it. I prefer lower taxes myself. Each of these crackpots would increase taxes on the middle class, and lower them on the top 1%, which should exclude them on its own. The one's that have raised money under the banner of abolishing the IRS, an impossibility, should be called out as what they are - crackpots.

[Dr. Sivana]

Which part of that was partisan? Which part was hectoring? And, which of the people you named is Hispanic? Or is the Latino Vote a moot point?

First there's Senator Ted Cruz, who might have a better shot if he used his real name,



The partisan and the hectoring comes in with asides about his nickname rather than discussing his tax proposal. At no point did you say he might do better because his formal name is more Hispanic sounding. You gave no reason at all why he should not use the informal name that he has used for all of his adult life. I think Latinos will know he's Cuban whether he goes by Ted or Rafael.

If you wanted to make a point about the Latino vote, you could have made it clear, or better yet place it in another post.

[Dr. Sivana]

I don’t believe you are including the payroll taxes in those numbers, which is (I believe) 7.65% on both employee and employer side from dollar 1.

I am not going to take your word for it that no one pays at the 39% bracket. If they don’t, I’m not sure how you can say the people in the top brackets are paying less.

Cruz is a devotee to Milton Friedman, whose considered to be anything but a crackpot. Personally, I think Friedman doesn’t take enough of the cultural/societal factors into consideration, as he focuses almost exclusively on dynamism, efficiency and growth on a macro level. But for a starting point, you can do much worse.

[NaturalBornConservative]

Actually, I didn’t want to make that point, as the rest of the sentence and entire post indicate. Honestly, that pinprick was a joke. I’m laughing even harder at your faux-hectoring. Moving on...