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

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

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Is this all a dream or what??????

I am thrilled that this is where the discussion has turned in less than one day. Think of what we were talking about before yesterday.

This reminds me of what a confederate soldier said when asked about why the troops were so intensely committed to Stonewall Jackson: "He brings us victories".

Well, I've had a lot of differences with Bush at times, over middle-east policy and over distaste with the "new tone in Washington" concept, and over giving some ground on the domestic agenda.

But I'm ready and willing to admit that maybe someone (Bush and his team) had a better plan than me, knew more than I, and could produce better strategy and better thinking than I could.

I'm ready to commit to following Bush's lead.

Why?

Because he brings us victories.

[palmer]

BTW you should know that 80% of all retail $ change hands in 20% of retail establishments.

Great. Do you think it is a good idea to only be able to buy ammo from Walmart?

That being said, cheaters will always cheat. But by eliminating the major reasons for cheating, the problem is minimized....which makes the nrst better than the income tax from a compliance standpoint.

The flea market I go to has almost every useful item imaginable with no sales tax. Some of it is new and some used. With a 20 or 30% tax for "new" it will all become "barely used". Then the plainclothes feds will come and try to sort out what is new and what is not, or else shut the whole place down (it is huge). I can't see any way that they can stop these merchants.

The way I see it, eventually all purchases will have to be made at government approved stores. Just by sheer coincidence that's also what the gun controllers would like.

[carenot]

At the flea market near me there are people selling new merchandise without collecting sales taxes. Presumably that's illegal now but not enforced. Under the NRST, I presume there would have to be on-site enforcement?

But the people selling it, bought it somewhere. With the Fair Tax they have aleady paid, someone, somewhere.

People at flea markets bought it somewhere when it was new. Or from someone that bought it when it was new.

[weikel]

You know it'd be real interesting if we could get the greens on board that would effectively checkmate the socialist as this proposal effectively unites all factions of the right behind it, if we get one faction of the left then nothing could stop it.

[palmer]

But the people selling it, bought it somewhere. With the Fair Tax they have aleady paid, someone, somewhere.

They buy wholesale from a distributer or importer like they do now.

[Principled]

thanks geez!

[weikel]

Opps lol I said medicine twice.

[Exigence]

No way. You would have to own 67 Senate seats and 280 House seats to pull this off. And even then it would be hard as bricks to pull off.

Oh? Which Dems would you say will put themselves in the public opinion crosshairs by defending the IRS? The same ones who opposed the tax cuts they voted for? Or the ones that voted for the Iraq authorization, even though they didn't agree?

We're talking about the IRS, an almost universally despised institution.

[Principled]

Do you think it is a good idea to only be able to buy ammo from Walmart?

Huh? Where'd that imagination come from? Is it the case today that one can only buy ammo at walmart? No. What indicates to you that for some heretofor unknown reason, ammunition will be available only at walmart... and this due to the implementation of a nrst... and sunspots no doubt???

What the hell kind of sense does that comment make?

[Principled]

Didn't you know Al Gore invented the nrst.

[Principled]

The mortgage interest deduction is no reason to reject the nrst.

Home mortgage interest deductions serve the function of allowing homeowners to pay for interest on their home mortgage with untaxed earnings. Well, under the nrst mortgage interest would be paid with untaxed earnings as well - but there is no need for any deduction because ALL EARNINGS ARE UNTAXED, not just the earnings the pols want to untax you from.

[Exigence]

The way I see it, eventually all purchases will have to be made at government approved stores

This is a stretch that defies logic. Sorry, I can't see your "leap" from national sales tax to government-approved stores.

Are you forgetting that some states are already funded this way? I don't recall any of them requiring state-approved stores. Caution is good, but let's not be needlessly paranoid.

[palmer]

Only a small amount of imagination needed: imagine I pull up behind a truck at the side of the road in a rural area. The truck contains merchandise that was bought wholesale maybe right even on the dock in L.A. What will stop me from buying and not paying the sales tax?

Now imagine that there are controls to prevent this. I can't imagine any such controls but maybe your imagination is better than mine. Now imagine I want to buy a whole lot of ammunition. I am willing to pay sales tax. How will I be able to purchase that ammo anonymously?

[William Terrell]

Which rationale? I listed several points.

As much was said of the income tax against heavy tarriffs back when the tax was being pushed. You're saying that the sales tax will be small because more will be paying it. That doesn't necessarily follow.

I'd dispute the notion that only 50% of the people earning livings in the US pay income taxes. That means 50% of the people are not paying taxes. If that's true, which I doubt, obviously they are not just protesting taxes by not paying them. Only a very few. The others have a reason and that reason probably has to do with not being able to survive when prices are 30% higher.

Anytime there is a foot in the door, the gap gets wider. The rate will always creep up. The income started at what? And it is now what? No reason to expect that process to cease with a NRST. Because people will be confronted with it every day? They'll adjust without revolt, just they adjust without revolt to some of the most egregious things happening in the country now.

The income tax has limits to its abuse. An NRST has no limits.

[carenot]

Somebody's probably alread said it, but I wish Chief Negotiator were alive to read this.

Yes, I do too.

But he was murdered, Oct 4, 2001.

We were trying to solve it. But it was covered up.

[palmer]

Those states typically overlook the new merchandise being sold tax free at flea markets. If they started to enforce the tax, those sales would move elsewhere especially if the tax is high.

[Principled]

THe 16th doesn't have to be repealed first - but it should be repealed for sure. But don't let that hangup keep you from learning more about the nrst.

HR2525 implements significant barriers to the possibility of having a sales tax with an income tax. By the way, these barriers do NOT exist today...meaning that the gov't could, overnight, implement a sales tax on top of our existing income tax....yikes!

By passing HR2525, we would:,
defund the irs
destroy all existing income tax records save those of delinquents
erase 100% of the income tax code
eliminate paycheck withholding
eliminate payroll tax

Even without abolishing the 16th first, we become safer from having both by passing the nrst. After all, how difficult would it be to re-institute an income tax after defunding the IRS, after destroying ALL income tax records, after allowing all of us to receive 100% of our paycheck free of federal deductions? And an entirely new income tax code would have to be re-written.

Those safeguards do not currently exist - it would make us safer to pass the nrst in that regard.

[William Terrell]

The 16th will still be in place when a fiscal (emergency!) happens. An income tax code to deal with that (emergency!) complete with enforcers can be cobbled together quickly enough. Then we'd have both. No thanks. Repeal AND ratify first.

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

Many years ago I was a computer salesman for a major company. Our commission structure was as follows. 6% for the first 100K in sales, 4% for 100-200k, then 2% for all sales over 200K in a calendar year. This wasn't working out that well, so the company reversed the structure. Now, all sales over 200K went UP to a 6% commission. BOOM! Lots more sales! Suddenly, all my fellow salesman were pounding a lot more pavement towards the end of the year. Whereas, in the original structure, the last few months of each year saw us getting lazy because we would delay the business until the start of the new year to get the higher commission. My point here is...What do you think would happen if we did the same restructuring with income tax rates? I think my company was a microcosm of the success that could be attained if tax rates WENT DOWN as your income went UP!

[SupplySider]

YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!