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."
Like you,I am heart sick that the Chief's case has been shelved.All of that scut you did seems to have been ignored,but believe me,it was NOT "useless".At least those of us here,who cared and still care,know that it was NOT in vain.Chief's murderer/s may never be put on trial;however,at least YOU and others tried to get some closure;unlike the bumbling police.
So I'm curious. If indivuals are the only one who pay taxes and they only pay them in the price of goods and services. If the NRST is passed are wages going to go down by the amount of my income and payroll taxes (since these are really not my earnings but added costs on the price of goods)?
Gone from this plane,but NEVER forgotten.
Have you ever been wrong?
On occasion, once I though I was wrong, and had to retract my apology when I found out I was actually right.
I am shocked, SHOCKED! that a cumulative record would get larger every year.
So does the number of active pages and forms.
Address your concerns to:
| http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-15-03-3.html "Income taxes: A bad idea that got worse.
|
Address your concerns to:No, the title of the chart is wrong. It is not the Total Pages of Federal Tax Rules (even including tax code, tax regulations, and various IRS rulings). The title should be:
"What's more is that it saves social security. No more worker-to-retiree ratios. ALL of sociaty funds retirees, not workers.
Social Security becomes even more of a pure Socialist program at this point. Which is bad. At this point there is at least some tenuous connection between what you put in and what you take out. Under your plan it becomes a completely unearned entitlement. Someone who never worked a day in their life would get exactly the same benefit as someone who worked 2 jobs for 40 years. Does that make sense to you? It's basically a lottery for those who live the longest.
My alternative is 100% privitization. Each person would get exactly what they put in, with interest, no more no less. Interest would be calculated based on T-Bill rates and compounded retroactively. At retirement each citizen could elect to 1) convert it to an annuity (no balance at death of self and spouse) 2)take interest only payments (full balance is inhereted at death).
We might still need a charity system for those who don't contribute, but it should be obvious that is a govenment charity, not a blurred issue like with todays system."
-- Any belief that Social Security is a retirement fund IS AN ILLUSION. In Fleming v. Nestor, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that SS is nothing more than a welfare program:
"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." The Court went on to say, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."
-- So you see, this wouldn't be creating a welfare program. De-linking SS from workers would make it what it should be: a safety net. In fact, it would encourage privatization. Why? Well, you can avoid contributing to SS by NOT spending money and saving it instead. Over time, SS will become less and less important and more of a safety net.
But you don't really care if the title is misleading, do you.
"Includes tax code, "
full text of current code and amendment notes; Related Statutes; compilation of full text of Internal Revenue Code sections,
"tax regulations "
regulations and proposed regulations, excerpts of committee reports,
Regulations Status Tables;
"and various IRS rulings."
CCH explanations, and annotations of cases and rulings beginning in 1913;
Topical Index to 2002 Developments; Cumulative Index to 2002 Developments; 2002 Finding Lists; 2002 Case Tables; Supreme Court docket; 2002 Legislation; Regulations Status Tables; full text of 2002 Rulings; 2002 Treasury Decision Preambles; digests of selected IRS Letter Rulings; digests of 2002 Tax Court Decisions;
full text of 2002 Rulings; 2002 Treasury Decision Preambles; digests of selected IRS Letter Rulings; digests of 2002 Tax Court Decisions; CCH Comments; CCH Tax Focus and Features; Citator; "How to Use this Citator;" Current Citator Table; main citator; Finding Lists; U.S. Tax Cases--Advance Sheets; Proposed Regulations; Digests Last 2001 Court Decisions; and 2002 U.S. Tax Cases)
You don't care that the total number of sections of active code and active regulations have been steadily increasing through those years do you.
The murder(s) think they've gotten away clean, but they've broken one of God's Commandments.
They have a judgement and punishment coming that will be far worse than man can devise.
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord".
"Am I missing something? Isn't this the socialists dream come true. "To Each According to His Needs". The 'Fair Tax' gives them the tool to solidify one side of their program. Then they keep ratcheting up the amount of the "rebate". I realize the earned income tax credit does that for a few people now, but this would be nationwide. The 'dole' comes to America! Yuck. Eliminate this provision. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY. Just because your poor doesn't mean you don't owe SOMETHING for the collective security of the USA, the interstate system that brings food to market, the cost of incarcertaing criminals. You benefit from all those, so pay for it."
-- Living on the government dole? are you serious? It's only 23% of the poverty line, so if you're a family of 4, you only get All it does $5,750 A YEAR! You make a poor argument. All the Prebate does is make the 0% tax rate the poverty line. Every American gets enough tax money to buy goods up to the poverty line
"and various IRS rulings."Are "CCH explanations, and annotations of cases and rulings beginning in 1913" IRS rulings?CCH explanations, and annotations of cases and rulings beginning in 1913;
Topical Index to 2002 Developments; Cumulative Index to 2002 Developments; 2002 Finding Lists; 2002 Case Tables; Supreme Court docket; 2002 Legislation; Regulations Status Tables; full text of 2002 Rulings; 2002 Treasury Decision Preambles; digests of selected IRS Letter Rulings; digests of 2002 Tax Court Decisions;
full text of 2002 Rulings; 2002 Treasury Decision Preambles; digests of selected IRS Letter Rulings; digests of 2002 Tax Court Decisions; CCH Comments; CCH Tax Focus and Features; Citator; "How to Use this Citator;" Current Citator Table; main citator; Finding Lists; U.S. Tax Cases--Advance Sheets; Proposed Regulations; Digests Last 2001 Court Decisions; and 2002 U.S. Tax Cases)
You don't care that the total number of sections of active code and active regulations have been steadily increasing through those years do you.I don't know how the active code has been increasing, do you have a chart that shows that? It would be interesting to see how the actual code has grown. But I've already said the code it too large.
Repeat after me, "It's not a prebate. It's not a rebate. It's not a refund. It's a demogrant." (but you can call it and allowance if you want)
FindLaw that states the Internal Revenue Code is 4,500 pages long. Too long for sure, but nowhere near the 54,000 you would have everyone believe.
Hmmm,
http://www.yenra.com/irs-audit-random/
"The Internal Revenue Code is currently more than 4,500 pages long," Southward points out, "and the IRS Regulations which interpret the tax code are more than 18,000 pages!
Not to mention
forms, publications & rulings:
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/2003/index.html
and current tax caselaw,
SEARCHING: All Tax Cases 14104 DOCUMENTS SEARCHING ON tax
No kidding. Me too! C-Span ran all the old acceptance speeches from years back, during the recent Rat convention, and almost every single one of them mentioned "Tax Reform"...something that always sounds good, but may never happen.
You just can't admit when you're wrong.
Never when I am right.
You've never conceded the smallest point because the truth doesn't matter.
I don't "concede" points as the truth indeed does matter. I certainly do not concede to fallacy.
Are you serious? It's only for 23% of the poverty line, so if you're a family of 4, you only get All it does $5,750 A YEAR! You make a poor argument. All the Prebate does is make the 0% tax rate the poverty line. Every American gets enough tax money to buy goods up to the poverty line.
It's actually BETTER than the Earned Income Tax Credit, which only applies to people UNDER the poverty line.
The Prebate/Rebate/FCA is the STANDARD DEDUCTION for the FairTax, plain and simple. Comment?
I'm not a big fan of the rebate, by any name.
But I am willing to accept it in exchange for the rest of the provisions of the FairTax.
It's the political trade-off to defeat the class-warfare arguments of the Left.
You betcha.
Are you serious? It's only for 23% of the poverty line, so if you're a family of 4, you only get All it does $5,750 A YEAR!That doesn't make it a prebate, it doesn't make it a rebate. It's a demogrant or an allowance.
All the Prebate does is make the 0% tax rate the poverty line.And the 12% percent of the population below the poverty line makes money.
The Prebate/Rebate/FCA is the STANDARD DEDUCTION for the FairTax, plain and simple. Comment?It's not a deduction. Why do you think the bill calls it an allowance?
Never when I am right.But I've shown you're wrong. The number of pages in the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter includes more than federal tax rules, tax code, tax regulations and various IRS rulings. You are wrong.
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.
