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."
Alternatives?Eliminate the corporate income tax and simplify the current individual income tax. Add unrestricted, tax-free savings/investment accounts and you have a consumption tax (consumption is just income minus savings) without the give-away of the family consumption allowance or the economic and enforcement issues with a state collected NRST.
All that is necessay to oppose the NRST shills is confidence in one's own common sense. The threads of their convoluted proposal are actually quite easy to unravel, and they quickly discredit themselves with beligerant name-calling.
What have you easily unraveled? Please be specific.
I was tied up and forgot to ping you to #438 and Herb's favorite subject.
Maybe you are Willie Green.
No points for originality.
The complete insufficiency of your proposal was illustrated four long years ago on the thread that Willie linked us to earlier. I thanked him for bringing that to our attention.
Add unrestricted, tax-free savings/investment accounts and you have a consumption tax (consumption is just income minus savings)...
No. What you have is the status quo, and the continuation of all the worst aspects of the current system, including the existence of the IRS.
...without the give-away of the family consumption allowance...
It is not a giveaway. For the average consumer, it is simply the replacement of what has been expended up to the poverty line.
...or the economic and enforcement issues with a state collected NRST.
Any reasonable person can easily see that the economic and enforcment issues favor the NRST over the income tax in every aspect. And that is putting it mildly.
Fact is, the FairTax is so exceedingly superior that to try to argue otherwise makes you look like a damned fool.
Specificity is not Willie's long suit.
LOL, You've tried that tactic before remember?Yeah, and never were able to admint that Payne's $800 billion includes individual tax compliance. And when I asked you how the Robbin's came up with their 33.6% federal tax burden in consumer prices, you couldn't answer that one either. But still you do your cut & pasties.
One of many available examples:
Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use:
"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children,...But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785 -- PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT
All of the studies that I have read lead me to agree with your assessment.Care to provide a few links so the rest of us on this thread can educate ourselves?
LOL! Once again, you're squealing like a stuck pigdong!
"A home is NOT an investment, W/G, but merely a place to live."
Posted on 03/26/2001 16:27:50 PST by pigdog
I'll take you off ignore since at least you'r asking questions.
You started this by claiming that income taxes are visible and that you know your income taxes exactly.
First ask yourself, do you really think anyone else here doesn't know their personal payroll tax? Of course they do! So ask yourself why are they saying income taxes are hidden? It's because they are referring to PRODUCTS! They are not referring to your paystub.
Your response should have been, "Okay, now I see what you meant by invisible and I agree that income taxes, as part of the price of a product, are not visible. But how do we know taxes form the bulk of a product's price?"
By responding in that way you would have appropriately engaged an informative discussion on this topic. Instead you have launched into your own polemic.
I hoped I have reached you and that you will be a better person for it.
Scary to read that list once again.
The Left has succeeded in implementing far too much of it here in the good old U. S. of A.
Sad to see some few FReepers defending one large portion of their Twentieth Century gains.
Educate yourself. Use Google.
Yeah, and never were able to admint that Payne's $800 billion includes individual tax compliance.
LOL, nothing to be admitted, once again you spin rather that treat facts.
Payne's factor calculates a much higher value than $800billion, As the response here showed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160242/posts?page=497#497
You say $800 billion in corporate tax compliance in 1995
No I stated $800 billion in business tax compliance for 2000, the base I used for calculations.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160242/posts?page=488#488
Bottomline.
The $800 billion estimate is a conservative value for the cost of compliance on business factors affecting price alone.
"A family purchasing their own new home for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax."
You call that a "land grab"? Okay, next you say:
"A landlord/investor can exploit the business exemption of NRST and purchase the same new single family dwelling tax free as a rental investment for only $154,000. Tenants pay NRST on rent and Landlords act as tax collectors for the government"
Okay, so I sell my residence to a residential rental company and I don't have to pay tax?
I suspect you'd be giving me false advice if you said yes.
Now if I had a rental property and sold it to a rental property business, then yes may be they would get a discount.
Sorry guy, your argument does not hold water.
Try again.
Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use:
Posing?
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Sure looks like tax reform to me.
Willy, how many years you going to continue with the same wornout irrational diatribe? You never change it or try even to clean it up to present a more coherent and rational argument for your postition. Just through it out there to bump a thread because you don't like seeing the NRST touted as a alternative to the income tax.
You continually throw it out inspite of the fact it has been totally refuted everytime you have posted it.
Now to answer your specific allegations:
- Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.
- Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.
This a significant inequity between individuals trying to buy their own new homes and landord/investors looking to buy the same single family dwelling as a rental investment.
ROTFLM(_|_)O!
Still playing rich man against poor man aren't you Willy.
You do know of course, that investors are home buyers and renters too, don't you?
Why don't you mention:
These factors more than overcomes any imagined advantage of investor over the homebuyer so that all homebuyers can become an investors too.
But then good socialists never consider becoming investors themselves now do they W.G.
Now, lets take a look at some of your points and see how they hold up:
A typical family purchasing their own new house today has 25% or more of their gross income extracted by the Federal government before they even think about buying a new or even an older house. That is not even counting the tax costs and costs of compliance placed on businesses of an additional 20 to 30% and embedded in the price of the new house.
Of course that landlord/investor also pays the same tax on the house he lives in or rents before he can ever become an "investor/landlord" in the first place. Or do you figure such folks live in NY allies and sleep on park benches.
Additionally, a buyer of an older home, is not charged the NRST, which is the case of most first time buyers of homes.
Actually not, as the Landlord/invester pays the 23% tax on the home he lives in whether rented or purchased, the same manner as any other individual.
Again untrue, the landlord/investor pays the same tax on the home he rents or buys new for his personal use. All individuals are treated the same under the NRST. Infact, because the individual receives the full benefit and control of his gross income, as opposed to merely after tax income under the current system. That plus the NRST prebate paid to ALL households provides an enhanced opportunity for everyone to become investors.
Under the current Income/Payroll tax system, the total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for taxes alone. Including cost of compliance at around $600billion/year, increases that percentage to about a 47% total burden with respect to current family consumption expenditure caused by the federal tax system as it exists today.
First ask yourself, do you really think anyone else here doesn't know their personal payroll tax? Of course they do! So ask yourself why are they saying income taxes are hidden? It's because they are referring to PRODUCTS! They are not referring to your paystub.Maybe you should review the thread again. I was responding to a post that claimed the bulk of our tax burden is hidden. That's just not true. That's how we got on this subject of hidden/visible.
"Okay, now I see what you meant by invisible and I agree that income taxes, as part of the price of a product, are not visible. But how do we know taxes form the bulk of a product's price?"If you looked at the numbers I provided you would see the government collected $168 billion in corporate income taxes. Even if half of product's prices was income taxes, that means there was $336 billion in goods and services sold in 2003. Seems a little low too me, don't you think?
Ok, anyone reading the thread can see you're twisting the context. Back to ignore with you.
Please don't bother responding, I will no longer respond to you.
The $800 billion estimate is a conservative value for the cost of compliance on business factors affecting price alone.No it's not. That is way out of whack.
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.