Posted on 04/27/2015 3:02:31 AM PDT by Din Maker
Sen. Ted Cruz has been gunning to abolish the Internal Revenue Service since coming to Washington two years ago.
To critics, it sounds like bluster. The fiery rhetoric garners hearty applause from conservative audiences, particularly since revelations in 2013 that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. But some federal agency is going to have to collect taxes, so Cruz's vow to shutter the IRS smacks of a politically motivated campaign promise rather than serious policy — at least to some.
In an interview with the Washington Examiner on Friday, the 2016 presidential candidate began to put some meat on the bones. Cruz, 44, explained how "abolishing the IRS" fits into his proposal, still being crafted by his team of economic advisors, for wholesale tax reform. This proposal, which Cruz plans to unveil later this year, is a key plank in his domestic agenda for economic growth that he would pursue as president.
In its purest form, a "flat tax" treats all taxpayers equally. Income is taxed at the same rate regardless of earnings or wealth, while allowing for no tax deductions or exemptions.
"We will roll it out with precise details in the coming weeks or months," he said. "There are trade-offs to be had and we're right now internally having those debates. But Cruz said his flat tax proposal might allow some deductions, possibly for charitable donations and mortgage interest charged on a primary residence.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Since all taxpayers are to be treated equally, does this mean no more tax exempt organizations? If not, then how does this resolve the issue of some government organization going after Tea Party groups. If it does get rid of tax exempt organizations then the Tea Party will have one the battle (no IRS) but lost the war (will have to pay taxes).
I am not impressed by talk of abolishing the IRS & a new flat tax.
A flat tax will not fix the problems with the IRS. How will a flat tax fix the corruption surrounding non-profits? It wont.
Income Tax is the problem. The gubmint, including those who favor a flat tax which includes, apparently,Ted Cruz, want to keep their nose in everybody’s business, to keep a monitor on individuals. The current best way to do that is for everyone to have to report their income. It is a totally lopsided relationship that heavily favors the government.
Replacing income tax with a retail sales tax or the Fair Tax proposal would significantly reduce government manipulation of individuals & groups, reduce its snooping, reduce tax cheating, while taxing consumption rather than productivity.
With an end to income tax, businesses could concentrate on making a profit rather than avoiding income tax. All those overseas profits could enter the US without double taxation. Non-profit designation for tax purposes would end. Church leaders would be free to talk about politics again from the pulpit.
I suspect what Cruz reveals as a simpler, fairer flat tax will still be thousands of pages of oppression & continuing government meddling in how we make a living & spend our money. It saddens me that Cruz wants to keep the government looking over our financial shoulder. I had hoped he was better than that.
A flat tax doesn’t rid us of a centralized collection agency.
A consumption tax would get much closer, and eliminate the ability of that agency to intimidate individuals.
“I think if the flat tax plan eliminates even the mortgage interest deduction for a primary residence, the rate could be as low as 18.75%”
18.75%??? Wow, the vast majority of Americans pay nowhere near that rate. The effective tax rate on my returns has been running around 16% the last few years, and that is on income that is well above the median family income.
Can you imagine the screaming that will occur if families making $75,000 and paying around 9% effective rate find out they are going to have to pay 18.75%? To me, the only answer is the FAIR tax, under which the tax payers are somewhat able to limit their taxes by managing their consumption.
Grammar is so antiquated, Steve. Apparently, today’s writers are encouraged to just express themselves while following any composition “rules” they choose.
Don’t even get me started on “its”/”it’s” or “alot” or “prolly” for “probably”.
Of course, anyone here who attempts to point out errors is often called names. I try to point out to the offended parties that the reader will think a writer’s thinking is also sloppy if the writer’s language usage is sloppy.
Regardless...say it does...there are a whole bunch of other taxes that will have to kick in....
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Better yet. Let’s add a Consumption Tax to it. Let the parents of these high school kids that I teach, who get a free breakfast and lunch, yet they have 4 pair of Tennis Shoes that costs $125 each...... let them pay a Consumption Tax on their freakin’ Tennis Shoes. And, I’m not exaggerating. These kids wear shoes to match their shirt. If they wear an orange shirt, they wear orange tennis shoes; blue shirt, blue tennis shoes..... and the beat goes on. And their parents pay NO Income Tax.
Why go through that whole rigmarole when you can fill out a much simpler tax form that could be complete in maybe 20 minutes at most?
Hey, I’m a grammar cop myself. I know the difference in “reign” and “rein”. I was not the one who wrote the article. I’m still trying to convince people that there is no such word as “irregardless”.
But, that is beside the point. What I’m asking is how do you sell a 18% Flat Tax to people who make $75,000/year and are used to paying around 10% and filing rather simple returns already? The dems will be all over this one as being a “regressive” tax being put on the backs of the middle class and the poor.
BTW. good luck with "irregardless". :)
Cruz has said (I believe in Hannity TV interview) that he MUCH prefers the Fair Tax. Thinks the path to the Flat Tax is more do-able right now (quicker) as a first step.
$14,000 single
$28,000 married/registered domestic partner
$21,000 single legal head of household
$9,000 per legal dependent in household
As such, for a family of two adults and two children, the first $46,000 of income will be essentially tax-free. That means for your $75,000 per year example, only $29,000 of that income is subject to that 18.75% flat tax rate.
Don’t get too cute...
Come bold and come simple.
People are tired of having to hire an accountant simply to confirm they have earned their annual privilege to remain out of jail...
The IRS is oppressive.
Tax laws are confusing and ridiculously complicated.
Too many exemptions and deductions leads us right back down the same silly rabbit hole.
To be fair I listened to a recent interview with Cruz where he said he favored a Fair Tax but he just did not know if it could be done at this point so the Flat tax was the next best thing.
Isn’t that the late Ambassador Chris Stevens next to Sen. McCain in the third photo?
That is the main reason to get rid of it, not because it makes it too hard to get rid of.
Yes, the fourth photo.
YOu can’t get rid of the IRS without getting rid of the income tax. The vast majority of the tax code is dedicated to determining what is and isn’t income. Reducing deductions will help reduce the size of the code somewhat, but it still leaves in place all the machinery that is used to destroy the 4th and 5th amendments.
A flat 10% sales tax is what should replace the IRS. They should reduce spending until they can live under what the previous year’s 10% tax produced.
And the usage is wrong. You don’t “rein back”; you “rein in”.
One might say “claw back”, but yes “rein in” correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.