Posted on 08/02/2004 11:16:09 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON – Is it real or is it an election year scheme to win votes?
That's the question many in this town are asking about House Speaker Dennis Hastert's proposal to eliminate the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service in a second Bush administration.
In his upcoming book, "Speaker: Lessons from Forty Years in Coaching and Politics," Hastert says the bold move – sure to be immensely popular with voters – will be the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda in a second term.
Hastert, for his part, says he will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax.
"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," he writes in "Speaker," set for release tomorrow.
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 sales tax.
Yet, 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.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult," admits Hastert. "Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad."
Americans for Fair Taxation has been pushing the plan for years. Recently, the group has been pushing H.R. 25 as the vehicle.
"The current federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach. It's time for the FairTax," says the group's website. "From its humble beginnings, the income tax has grown like a cancer by taxing our hard work and discouraging savings and investment."
H.R. 25 would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax paid by the end user. That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed. The organization estimates consumer prices will drop by an estimated 20-30 percent as a result of the change.
The group's website describes how the bill's rebate function works. It assures that those living in poverty would not pay any tax.
"Under the FairTax, no American will pay taxes on necessities. The rebate will be equivalent to the tax paid on essential goods and services. The rebate will be mailed before the tax is actually paid [and] will be paid in equal installments at the beginning of the month. The size of the monthly rebate will be determined by the federal poverty level for a particular household size."
The bill's Senate version is S.1493, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., was introduced last year.
"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," writes Hastert. "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."
Would a campaign promise to eliminate the IRS be taken seriously? If the Bush administration were really planning such a dramatic move in a second term, why would campaign officials not be making more of it? Could Bush really deliver on a promise so bold?
These were some of the questions being asked around the Capitol today. Nevertheless, the leak from Hastert is sure to sell books.
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity," Hastert continued. "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."
To steal a line from a friend.............
"My vote is for sale."
I want to hear bush make this promise, live, prime time.
I think it's at least as important as his promises to foxx.
"I really like the idea of 15% flat tax across the board.
I would love to see someone point out why that might be a bad idea or not fair?"
Hey, even God only asked for 10%.
15% is too much by 10 percentage points.
I would love to see someone point out why that might be a bad idea or not fair?
The income tax is like a cowpie.
Flatten it, and it's still a cowpie.
;-)
But all joking aside, the flat income tax has been subjected to rigorous examination and extensive debate for the last decade. It has failed to meet the test of true fundamental tax reform. It has lost the debate. Bury it, it's dead.
Dennis Hastert knows this. He also knows that the VAT is not acceptable. But he offers it as a way to forward the public debate.
bump
While I certainly agree with you for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the federal government has far exceeded its constitutional mandate, you are ignoring the political realities that must be faced to actually accomplish this task.
The first rule of tax reform is that you must lay out a plan that is revenue neutral: ie collects the same amount of revenue as is currently the case.
It must be noted here that the RATE is not a commentary on the rightness or the efficiency of the form of taxation in this case. It is a commentary on spending directly.
IRS commissioner Shirley Peterson stated a long time ago, "Eight decades of amendments to the code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze. The rules are unintelligible to most citizens. The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law."
"we can collect taxes on consumption or sales. Everybody has to buy to survive."
Yes, and that includes the Border Violators (illegial immigrants) who work on cash, and pay no income tax.
Could someone explain what the VAT is? I's dum! ;)
A thread that has nearly 650 posts on this same topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183112/posts
Even contains the usual rantings of the kneejerk opponents of fundamental tax reform.
Not dumb. Simply uninformed! ;-)
A VAT is unacceptable because, while it is a consumption tax like the National Retail Sales Tax, it is collected at every stage of production.
This makes it another insidious HIDDEN tax, and therefore prone to continued political gamesmanship by the politicians. The divide and conquer tactics against the taxpayers would be allowed to continue under a VAT...
Everyone across this great land who supports fundamental tax reform knows this well...the VAT is a political nonstarter.
Hastert's VAT proposal is dead in its crib.
There is only one plan that meets all the criteria of true fundamental tax reform: the FairTax or some modification of it.
Every fair-minded person that has looked at this in depth arrives at the same conclusion.
They are also free to invest in Mexico, China, and India. There is no reason to think that tax savings will trickle down to Americans.
Thank you.
I think the national sales tax is the way to go. The people who are living hand to mouth don't have to worry since they will probably be under the income requirements and essentials (food etc) are exempt. If they are buying "stuff", they aren't living hand to mouth.
I seem to remember reading that with all her tax free bonds, tax shelters, etc., that 15% is what Teresa Heinz Kerry is paying. So it would be pretty amusing if John Kerry came out to complain this rate is too low! While I like the idea of a flat tax, I just don't see it ever being enacted, either.
Ping
Actually, there is.
Simple rules of economics:
Savings leads to capital formation.
Capital formation leads to productivity gains.
Savings, capital formation and productivity gains lead to higher incomes, more jobs and greater and greater economic activity.
Allow me to interject at this point that income taxes are one of the planks of the communist manifesto.
Our current system penalizes savings, investment, capital formation and stymies productivity growth.
Under the FairTax, that would all end. Capital would do its thing unimpeded.
Fact is, under the FairTax, this country would become the ultimate magnet for capital.
If you care about the future prosperity and freedom of your children and grandchildren, you just gotta support the NRST.
People will be taxed based on their LIFESTYLE. I think this is certainly fair. If you live on bare necessities (food, clothing, etc), you will pay no tax...since those items will be except. But when you buy $8,000 plasma TV's, you can certainly afford to pay.
You're very welcome!
:-)
This can't be. I thought Bush was a NWO/Globalist/Bilderberger.
woop...meant to say EXEMPT, not except. Food, clothing, gasoline, the first $10,000 of a car purchase...maybe a few other things would be exempt from the sales tax. This should satisfy any of the lefty pansies claiming a flat tax is "regressive"...rather than "progressive" (marxist).
The other part of that equation is that used products would not be taxed (again).
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.