Posted on 08/01/2004 6:08:53 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE.
"People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book, to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
"“If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and tax time is approaching, you don’t want to make a mistake, so you’re almost obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are in the same boat. You can’t. No one can because precise numbers don’t exist. But we can stipulate that we’re talking about a huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."
Me: I am for getting rid of the Gestapo, er I.R.S.."
You: These two are mutually exclusive. Which would you prefer?
Me: Yes and know. The/re almost synonymous. Their tactics are the same with a slightly different goal.
You missed my point. You said you favored both a flat tax and getting rid of the IRS. The Flat Tax is still an income tax. The only way to get rid of the IRS is to get rid of the income tax. An NRST is the best way to acconplish that.
"I don't have any real argument against NRST, as long as congress is prohibited from changing the tax levels, willy-nilly, whenever they feel like it..
There has to be harsh constraints on any new tax system to curb abuse by congress, and government in general.."
-- If you don't have any argumetns against it, why don't you support it? it's a truly superior system/ Go to http://www.fairtax.org
#77 post. Good post. I agree.
I prefer the NRST as it means that everyone has to pay taxes. Criminals (drug dealers and the like) usually do not fill out a tax form and pay taxes as they can't explain the source of their income.
With the NRST even criminals have to pay.... I like it !
And your thoughts about NAFTA are pretty right on, too, unfortunately. Neither party wants to enforce the border, for whatever reason. Any tax plan will play into it- short of a revolt, or militia action, there's not much anyone can do about the illegal invasion.
thx.
I've always felt that EVERYONE who makes over $10,000 annually should not pay more than 10% to the Feds and no more than 5% to local and state. No reductions, no tax breaks and fewer lawyers!
criminals buy stuff from other criminals. they even buy houses with cash. They won't report any of their transactions to anyone
That's the real issue here- not dollars, but control. The IRS currently holds every citizen in a state of potential jeopardy.
This plan turns the tables.
Not new houses.
Used ones are tax free anyway.
The assumption (inherent in this graph) is that all income is spent in ways subject to the NRST.
If that does not happen, the tax becomes regressive.
That is undoubtedly a desirable feature when one is focused on encouraging investment.
But there is also no denying that in that situation, the tax would be regressive.
"so switch to a low flat tax and you'll eliminate a lot of tax evasion. I already see a lot of sales tax evasion in the real world as businesses hide the cash they receive from consumers."
-- in any type of income tax system, flat or progressive, the incentive, and the ease, of evasion is higher than it would be under an NRST:
Under the income tax, retailers only have to misstate sales just enough to wipe out sales profits in order to evade 100% of his tax bill. Under the FairTax, a retailer would have to hide all of his sales in order to evade 100% of his tax bill, which is simply not possible. Since the payoff for evading taxes is much smaller under the FairTax, the motivation to evade taxes is much lower under the FairTax.
Don't know if you've seen this, so pingiedoodle.
Yes...even new houses. That's why the mafia is involved in construction companies
"I understand this stuff, but I have a degree in economics. Will the Republican Party be able to win the battle of ideas in campaign advertising?"
Excellent question. My reaction is that if Bush wants to make this a major campaign issue, he better be prepared to pour massive amounts of money into educating the voters. As evidenced by this thread, the uninitiated don't understand it and don't support it. The good news is that the more people understand it, the better they like it. Ijust hope that, if Drudge is correct, the campaign has earmarked big bucks for the education that will be required.
"And does this new plan not effect until the 16th is actually repealed (38 states, etc)? Because if this plan is instituted, but the 16th is not repealed, the income tax WILL return, on top of the NRST."
The FairTax bill repeals the IRC, defunds the IRS (incrementally over 5 years, I believe) and orders IRS records destroyed. The IRS would continue to operate for some time to collect arrearages. A constitutional amendment cannot be ratified or repealed within the body of a piec of legislation - the two processes are entirely distinct and separate. We would immediatley begin work on reprealing the 16th once the FairTax was in place. That will take several years. Trying to do so before that time would be an exercise in political futility. Few legislators would vote to eliminate the current system until a consensus is reached as to what would replace it. Once Americans have been freed from the tyranny of the IRS, the political pressure to keep it from rearing its ugly head again will mount rapidly.
Think about all the Not for Profit political organizations on the Left. Will they have hssy fits!
That's a turn in the right direction, but the road is full of sink holes.
I submit that it would never happen at all...38 out of 50 states? Too much opportunity for obstructionism.
I am sorry, but where does Drudge make his new book a GOP re-election strategy?
How does he pull Bush into it?
Don't get me wrong...I want the FairTax, but Drudge is stretching here by relying on Hastert's little book as something that means the GOP will push for it.
Come on Drudge.
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.