Posted on 08/02/2004 5:57:43 AM PDT by downtoliberalism
**Exclusive**
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
in a word yes....without the threat of the IRS throwing all of us in jail unless we comply with their thousands of regulations there would be no need to the tax accountants....corporate accountants would still be needed at least for publicly traded and multi-owner firms....but the small business man could avoid these high accounting fees every month, freeing up capitol for reinvestments, pay raises, business growth etc...the overall effect on the economy would be tremendous and there would be more than enough work for the displaced accountants....the displaced IRS workers - well, that may be another story -- perhaps some other form of extortion could be devised!
True. But almost all European nations use the input only, hence 'Value Added'.
I understood what you were getting at.
YES!!!! YES!!!!! YES!!!!
If only this were true. The Republicans don't have the cajones to push this through. They can't/won't/don't even defend capitalism and free markets anymore. Pussies.
As much as I would love to see a sales tax that eliminates all other taxes, it ain't happening. There is no way that the federal employees that work for the IRS are going to allow being "downsized".
>>I fail to understand how people get excited about a 30% national sales tax on top of what will need to be a 10% state sales tax.
Any reform of the IRS would have to include reforming social security ( privatizing it ). The 30% number accounts for social security which is an abysmal failure and doomed for bankruptcy. Privatize social security, REDUCE the size of government and the sales tax could be a lot lower.
>>No national sales tax, no VAT tax. Flat tax and be done with it.
A flat tax may only be marginally better than what we have now. The problems with the IRS is defining what is INCOME and what are EXPENSES. Example: If you have a commercial property and you pay to have the parking lot sealed, is that an improvement or an expense? Was it for business or personal use? With a sales tax, it doesn't matter. With an income tax, you are still at the mercy of the IRS.
seems to me as long as it's only at the national level, bfd.
there's still state, county, city, school, excise, usage fees, telephone, bottle deposit, tobacco, alcohol...
well you get the picture.
You'll see Satan in a peacoat and muffler before that occurs, and in any case, the anti-Europe animus in the US is far too pronounced among the electorate (not necessarily among the soi-disant ''elites'') for any politico to even suggest such a concept.
Agreed, however, that some flavour of the IRS will still be required...but one can hardly imagine that a successor organisation, in a flat/fair tax regime, will be anything nearly as obnoxious and power-mad as the current ''service''. In a VAT regime, all bets are off; the enforcement organisation could EASILY be as obnoxious as the IRS; consult the Inland Revenue people for details.
:^)
Oh yes it does. The sales tax has the exact same problem. Everyone will try to make all expenses business expenses and not be subject to sales tax. This 'loophole' will have to be closely scruntinized by the sales tax police. Just like now, every transaction will have to be looked at. Whether you look at it from the income perspective or the expense or sales perspective, it really doesn't make a huge difference.
Business to business is not taxed. Only retail is taxed.
Are you also implying that corporations will no longer have to pay any taxes on the products they buy? Will they be exempt from the sales tax on the products they purchase and consume? If they are, then the portion they paid in the past will shift to the individual and eat up any "price reduction" I might see from their savings. If they aren't exempt, than they haven't realized any significant savings.
Exactly, and in this country anyone can start a business. It is possible to make virtually all transaction tax free. This is where the new sale tax police come in and make rules over which transactions are really tax free, and the rules will be just as complex as the rules we have today. You can bank on it.
For a NRST to be fair, all individuals would pay proportionately based on their consumption. Do you think earned income tax credit recipients (the new welfare) aren't going to whine and scream when they loose their tax credit? Do you think low income taxpayers currently exempt from paying any tax won't do the same? Do you think politicians will ignore these screams and tax them fairly. I don't! Now you've either got sales tax exemptions, sales tax refunds or a new income tax on high (as yet to be defined) earning taxpayers. This will reintroduce compliance requirements and tax preparers. You can throw your fairness right out the window. Or you can say, "yea but it won't be me" but we can't even be certain about that.
I'm not saying our current system can't be improved upon. I'm just saying that waving a wand to change the income tax to a sales tax isn't the panacea everyone dreams it to be.
The perfect campaign issue for the Republicans. What are the Democrats going to do in response-- propose an expansion of the IRS???
Don't put it past them...
Well you seems to be saying that the NRST would be a fairer system and becuase it is a fairer system it will not be adopted. You might be right but that is not the fault of the system. Re earned income credit. As I understand it everyone gets a rebate of several thousnad dollars to compendsate for taxes paid on thier first 20,000 or so of income. The idea being to lesson the tax burden the first 20,000 or so of income which in the case of poor people is thier only income. So the system bends over backward to protect the income of poor people from taxes. Also I would tink that it would be possible to apply for earned income assistance, maybe not in the same way, but still possible.
They would have to fight with the IT people over the choice subway gratings.
"At least when you pay taxes through the IRS they are very visible to you."
Don't forget their miserable little plot to make this untrue for most of the masses. - Witholding.
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.