CAVUTO REPORTS THAT BUSH CONSIDERING SCRAPPING THE IRS CODE!!!

Fox News Channel | November 6, 2002 | n/a

[Tree of Liberty]

Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!

[Principled]

Technogeeb's mantra:

Freedom is slavery.

[Technogeeb]

I have no problem with a tax cut.

Then why do you oppose eliminating the tax on necessities via rebate/refund?

It's the "via rebate/refund" that I am opposed, because the system is anything but that. Imagine a system where everytime you buy food (grain, for example), a tenth of it is confiscated by the government. At the end of some period, the government then takes all this grain, subtracting what it needs for its own use, and divides the remainder equally among every household in the kingdom. Clearly, such a system would be communism. But if you replace "grain" with "tax dollars", your rebate system is exactly the same thing. In your zeal to create a "fair" tax system, you are advocating a limited form of communism.

You've already agreed that necessities ARE currently being taxed. So by refunding the tax paid on necessities, individuals are receiving a tax cut equivalent to the amount of earnings previously spent on necessites

No, they aren't, and that's the problem. It isn't a "refund" of the amount of tax paid, it is a "prebate" that is given equally to all in spite of the amount of tax paid or not paid.

Necessities now taxed. Necessities not taxed in future.

Under the system you are proposing, necessities would still be taxed. If the goal is to not tax necessities, then just don't "steal the tenth of grain" in the first place.

Tax cut to all in the amount of taxes previously spent on necessities

No, "prebate" government handouts to all in an amount the government thinks is a what they should have spent on necessities. In other words, "to each according to their needs", and just another mechanism of communism.

If you don't want to tax something, just don't tax it. But that answer isn't good enough for you, since it doesn't allow for the government meddling and associated bureaucracy that you so desire.

[Zon]

BTW look up "redistribution" in the dictionary.

Egads, not that! He be runnin' a way.

[Technogeeb]

Technogeeb's mantra:
R Freedom is slavery.

More lies from you. A government handout isn't "freedom", it is socialism. That you cannot tell the difference pretty much proves that you are a leftist. And that you insist on creating a government bureaucracy when simply not collecting a tax in the first place would achieve the same goal proves that you are a statist and an authoritarian.

In other words, you are a communist. Your lies and misquotes are typical of your pathetic breed.

[Technogeeb]

BTW look up "redistribution" in the dictionary.

Egads, not that! He be runnin' a way.

Redistribution means to reallocate, which is exactly what you two leftists are proposing; to collect money via the tax system and then hand a portion of it back out equally among every household. That you cannot see that such a scheme is socialism only shows how much your minds are diseased by collectivist thought.

[Zon]

Zon: Egads, not that! He be runnin' a way. 1003

That you cannot see that such a scheme is socialism only shows how much your minds are diseased by collectivist thought.

You're wrong again. That's nothing new or unusual coming from you, Technogeeb.

Speaking of diseased minds...

Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942

Robert Reich admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level??? Hmmm...

Technogeeb: If "falsifying poverty level" numbers were really a crime capable of being prosecuted, then show me a conviction. There is more than enough evidence (and even a "confession" by Robert Reich in the New York Times that the Clinton administration did that specifically) 973

More than enough evidence??? Hmmm...

Why have you shown no evidence??? Hmmm...

Claiming there's an article in The New York Times that backs up your claim is not evidence. It's a second claim -- a claim on top of a claim. Hmmm...

Technogeeb: I've already mentioned statements by Clinton administration officials (and where those statements can be found) admitting to manipulation of the numbers for political purposes. What more evidence do you need that the "poverty level" is subject to manipulation by the bureaucracy? 986

You keep saying things like "there is more than enough evidence" and "what more evidence do you need" -- yet you haven't posted a 'lick' of evidence to support your claim. Hmmm...

If there's supposedly an abundance of evidence available how come you haven't posted any of it??? Hmmm...

What more evidence does a person need??? Hmmm...

More than zero. Hmmm...

With that one May 21, 2001 New York Times article being your only claim of evidence you assert that that's more than enough evidence to prove that "the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration" and  further assert that it's more than enough evidence for the reader to base his or her decision on??? Hmmm....

Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974

You want Robert Reich imprisoned or to suffer punishment for committing the "crime"??? Hmmm...

Why is crime in quotes??? Hmmm..

Wouldn't it be an inversion of justice -- an injustice -- to imprison a person that didn't commit a crime??? Hmmm...

Robert Reich went on the record with The New York Times and confessed that he committed a crime -- a federal crime??? Hmmm...

Is the NYT the laughing stock of failed credibility that doesn't warrant the government arresting Robert Reich for the crime he openly confessed to and put on record at the NYT??? Hmmm...

Could it be that Robert Reich never confessed to the NYT that he committed a crime??? Hmmm...

Technogeeb, do you want me to post the May 26, 2001 New York Times article or would you like to post it so you can correct your many errors? ...Knowing that by you taking the initiative you may manage to save what little credibility you have left.

[Technogeeb]

Robert Reich admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level???

This was a response to your insistence that the bureaucracy (specifically the HHS, which you called an "honest" agency) wouldn't manipulate the poverty figures. The NYT article was a quote showing that the Clinton administration did just that, by supplying poverty figures that were lower than the real value. In your argument, you had blind faith in government (typical for collectivists like you) to provide a "fair" value for the calculations used for the government handout you are advocating, and were opposed (and are still opposed) to putting any checks on the use or abuse of government power.

Claiming there's an article in The New York Times that backs up your claim is not evidence

Posting the article here would be a copyright violation; the date of the article was given and someone else even posted a link to it; it isn't my fault you won't go read it.

Why is crime in quotes??? Hmmm..

Because the ability of the administration to manipulate the poverty numbers wouldn't be seen as a crime by any court (regardless of your insistence to the contrary; that existing laws would somehow prevent such manipulation). The administration has the ability to manipulation those numbers and get away with it, which is the fundamental flaw in your government handout scheme (which you call a "tax refund" even though the value of the handout has nothing to do with the amount of taxes paid by any specific individual) that you insisted didn't exist.

[Principled]

lol a tax refund is socialism????

hehehehehehehe...

Alngside your mantra, freedom is salvery is inscribed tax cuts are socialism

This is too much!

[Principled]

A refund is returning monies which have been overpaid. How is a refund a handout again?

If I receive a refund, it means I am getting back money I had already paid. How is that a handout?

This is getting phun.

[Zon]

Posting the article here would be a copyright violation; the date of the article was given and someone else even posted a link to it; it isn't my fault you won't go read it.

But I have read it and know full well what it says. The New York Times articles can be posted in their entirety on FreeRepublic without violating The New York Times copyright. But you already know that because everyday there's a half dozen or more full New York Times Articles Posted on FreeRepublic -- usually with internal links placed in one or more of the side bar categories for easy access and to attract attention to the NYT articles.

Besides, all you had to do is post the quote which is about one-twentieth of the article. But you already know you could do that. Why didn't you??? Hmmm... Perhaps because it contradicts you to a "T".

I give you one more opportunity. Technogeeb, do you want me to post the May 26, 2001 New York Times article or would you like to post it so you can correct your many errors? ...Knowing that by you taking the initiative you may manage to save what little credibility you have left.

[rolling_stone]

How will the gov't know what anyone's income is?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:1:./temp/~c107kV2thr:e36975:

I guess they will only know about employed people....it does seem to be a sticking point...eliminating the tax on all necessities would be difficult, as that could include food, clothing, housing, transportation.

On the other hand if the rebate is keyed just to the Poverty Level, what difference does it make what the poverty level is at if everyone receives the same amount?About the only possible monkeying around would be if they drastically changed the poverty level for an individual vs a larger family unit or vice versa.

The rebate will be for taxes assumed paid. I guess one could get more rebate than taxes paid if they were somewhat self sufficient and consumed less of the necessities, by camping in the wilderness and hunting & fishing for their own food.

Despite not being perfect, the NRST seems much more efficient and less subject to influence by special interest groups to me than what we have now.

Easiest & fairest thing to do IMO would be to eliminate the rebate and lower the tax for all, but how to convince the socialists that is fair is the problem, they are so used to handouts now.

[Technogeeb]

lol a tax refund is socialism????

No, you moron, but a government check sent to every household that has nothing to do with the amount of taxes paid by that household IS socialism, and that is exactly the collectivist system you are trying to implement. To insist that such a scheme is not socialism is as intellectually dishonest as insisting those people who get an EITC "tax refund" for taxes they never paid is just a "tax refund". It isn't; it is socialism just like the system you are proposing.

[Technogeeb]

A refund is returning monies which have been overpaid. How is a refund a handout again?

Government handouts to people regardless of how much taxes they did or didn't pay is socialism. How is a government handout a "tax refund" again?

If I receive a refund, it means I am getting back money I had already paid. How is that a handout?

No, you just want to leech off the taxes paid by other people, by getting a government check whose value has nothing to do with the amount of taxes that YOU paid. You want your "refund check" for taxes that somebody else paid. You're getting it now with your "earned income tax credit" and you don't want to lose it under the new system.

[Technogeeb]

The New York Times articles can be posted in their entirety on FreeRepublic without violating The New York Times copyright

I think you are lying again (not surprising). I have seen several comments pulled for supposedly violating that restriction. Is there a moderator that can verify this one way or another?

[Technogeeb]

Besides, all you had to do is post the quote which is about one-twentieth of the article

"Whenever the question of the poverty data came up informally," said Robert B. Reich, who was President Bill Clinton's first secretary of labor, "the consensus was not to change the standard for fear the poverty rate would look worse" — although the present poverty figures, as Mr. Reich put it, "are almost meaningless."

[Principled]

Yes. The main objections to the other nrst bills:
-there is still a requirement to track income
-there is still a requirement to have payroll taxes withheld
-there is still a huge opening for currying favor in the tax code via exemptions (doritos are food, fritos are a taxable snack... guess who gave to whose re-election campaign?)

HR2525 is the only nrst bill I've found that overcomes all three of these objectives of mine. Further, to the greatest degree, it imposes heavy downward pressure on taxes and hence spending.

HR2525's rebate mechanism is clearly the only way to prevent pols from currying favor in the tax code, IMHO.

WHile there have been legitimate questions raised on this thread about the rebate, the discussion is non-sensical. Each of the questions can be discussed logically and conclusions can be drawn. A logical discussion of rebate has been prevented from occuring on this thread, as I suspect was the goal of the poster in question.

However, a search on FR for "fair tax", "tax reform", etc will bring up a nice list of threads with some rational discussion.

[Principled]

...a government check sent to every household that has nothing to do with the amount of taxes paid by that household...

But the amount of the check sent to every CITIZEN household does have everything to do with the amount of taxes paid by that household.

IN-FRICKIN-DEED it represents the EXACT amount of tax paid on necessities last month!

Good grief!

How you can say such boggles the mind. "Freedom is slavery" and "tax refunds are socialism"... lol

[Technogeeb]

But the amount of the check sent to every CITIZEN household does have everything to do with the amount of taxes paid by that household.

Not it does not; and you are lying again. Each household of a given size receives the same amount in their government check, regardless of how much money they actually paid in taxes.

IN-FRICKIN-DEED it represents the EXACT amount of tax paid on necessities last month!

No it does not; even the quality of your lies are suffering now. Unless the government somehow tracks how much a specific individual paid in taxes, and determines what "necessities" are, there is no way the amount could be "EXACT". And since the government handouts you are advocating are the same for every household, and the probability of every household in the U.S. of a given size paying the "EXACT" same amount in taxes on "necessities", the chances of your lies being accurate is statistically zero.

How you can say such boggles the mind. "Freedom is slavery" and "tax refunds are socialism"... lol

Both of those statements are yours. At first I thought they were just more of your lies and ad hominem attacks, but considering your insistence on government handouts to every household in the U.S., it's beginning to look like you actually believe them.

[Principled]

The amount of the check is exactly the amount spent on necessities AS DEFINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, not the government.

Your myopic view is that only government can decide what is necessary. However, that view is obviously not shared by anyone other than left-leaning types.

With HR2525, individuals get to decide what's necessary. Are you opposed to individuals having that much independence? It seems so.

[Technogeeb]

The amount of the check is exactly the amount spent on necessities AS DEFINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, not the government

More of your lies. The amount of the government handout is determined by the government, not the individual.

Your myopic view is that only government can decide what is necessary.

On the contrary, it is you who are proposing a system that does exactly that, by setting the amount of tax supposedly paid on "necessities" and then giving a government check of that amount to every household, regardless of how much money they did or did not actually pay in taxes.

With HR2525, individuals get to decide what's necessary. Are you opposed to individuals having that much independence? It seems so

More of your revisionist lies. No system that attempts to achieve the objective of "independence" of the individual would involve the government handout "prebate" that you insist is a cornerstone of your system. You've just become accustomed to getting government checks and don't want to give up your ability to leech off of the taxes paid by others.