Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CAVUTO REPORTS THAT BUSH CONSIDERING SCRAPPING THE IRS CODE!!!
Fox News Channel | November 6, 2002 | n/a

Posted on 11/06/2002 1:39:57 PM PST by Tree of Liberty

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,081-1,088 next last
To: big ern
Yeah, I just saw it on FOX. Weird. Looked like the guy nodded in satisfaction at the end. Kinda like, "Whew, he got it right."
601 posted on 11/06/2002 9:20:16 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
The seller takes all the risks of selling at a tax free price to you. He doesn't know when it is worth your effort to turn him in for not remitting sales tax from your purchase of goods from him.

I have no idea if they're remitting although I suspect most are not or are unreporting. But in any case if I tell the VA authorities about my purchases, then I don't doubt the seller will have remitted enough to cover them. For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases.

602 posted on 11/06/2002 9:24:07 PM PST by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
I mean that I didn't hear Cavuto mention it in any lead it to the interview and it wasn't a "Fox News Alert", or anything special other than just a couple questions in the interview. I didn't intend to intimate that Cavuto didn't do his homework and had no basis for the question.
603 posted on 11/06/2002 9:24:30 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Principled
Bonaparte: "...the rate would have to be set fairly high and enforcement costs would be far from negligible."

Principled: "Not so Bonaparte. Compliance would be higher, and costs lower."
____________________________________________________________

Went to the link you supplied. 23% sounds about right, including the exemptions noted. (I would call that a high rate, but that's just me.) I'm aware that proponents of the NRST believe compliance will be no problem, but considering how much sales tax evasion already takes place, I'm not convinced that they're right. But, as I said, even with these drawbacks, the NRST would be a great improvement on what we have now. Personally, I wouldn't bother with rebate checks to the needy. I'd just exempt those goods that are necessities.

604 posted on 11/06/2002 9:25:00 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
As I said replacing the graduated income tax with an NRST, it's but one of five key factors. It would set off a chain reaction of benefits -- from post 291:
  1. Boom the economy because productivity is not taxed; no tax on profits or hidden taxes/fees.
  2. IRS threats and coercion eliminated and replaced with, if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the item.
  3. 20% decrease in retail prices facilitates spending and partially offsets the retail tax.
  4. People will know how much leviathan government is really costing them, resulting in...
  5. Shrinking government to it's constitutional function to protect synonymous private-property rights and individual rights from domestic and foreign criminals while upholding the sanctity of private contracts.
  6. Freedom in United States leads to other countries doing similar or risk its citizens fleeing to United States to increase productivity here while enjoying the fruits/prosperity of their labor.

605 posted on 11/06/2002 9:27:04 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: palmer

For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases.

Wrong. The business is responsible for collecting the tax. The purchaser bears no responsibility for the actions of the business. States do a competent job of collecting sales tax and watching over it. The national retail sales tax (NRST) would be much the same.

606 posted on 11/06/2002 9:36:43 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte; Principled
Personally, I wouldn't bother with rebate checks to the needy. I'd just exempt those goods that are necessities.

That's the problem. "Those goods that are necessities" as defined by Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank??

First "food and housing" (politically defined). Then "clothing". Then " medical care". Then whatever Lobbyists can angle for. Exemptions and Loopholes as far as the eye can see. Pretty soon you have a "sales tax code" every bit as complex as the current monstrosity.

The monthly Rebate (roughly $200 per month TO ALL, not just the "needy") is simpler -- and vastly less vulnerable to political manipulation.

And beyond that, it's just more libertarian (in the finest sense of the word) to Rebate the excess, and let Individual Citizens decide what constitutes our "basic necessities", than for Government to define it for Us.

607 posted on 11/06/2002 9:46:12 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
BTW -That leads me to a question. What hair color do they put on the drivers licenses of bald men?

Your query caused me to pull out my recently renewed KY driver's license and take a close look at it.

Interesting... there's no mention of hair color. I notice they've quit listing weight also.

Being both bald and overweight, I applaud these changes :)

608 posted on 11/06/2002 9:51:30 PM PST by upchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I think I heard that Rove has talked with the people from fairtax.org. A lot of them are in Texas, so we shall see.
609 posted on 11/06/2002 9:55:27 PM PST by bradactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: palmer

For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases.

Not at all. The only ones held liable for collection and remittence of the tax are sellers and they are required to save copies of reciepts issued for the goods they sell. It is up to the state tax authority to administer and enforce the povisions of the tax law and perform that level of audits and checks of operating businesses necessary to assure compliance.

Nowhere, is a final purchaser of goods to report anything at all.

For one selling retail, one of the requirements is to conform to the legal requirements thereof. If not then the risks are those you take on of your own will.

610 posted on 11/06/2002 10:01:43 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Tree of Liberty
I'll believe it when I see it. Actually, it would ultimately be in the best interest of all concerned, save some lawyers and the "tax specialists." I believe that tax revenues would actually increase after the economy adjusted to the change.
611 posted on 11/06/2002 10:20:57 PM PST by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
It would certainly be a tax on the poor, while it would be 'fairer' to tax all the ssame rate for income, it would not be fair to tax someone on expenditure without some sort of non-taxable commodities put on a no-tax list.

" ... to ensure that no American will pay tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the 23% consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, and lowers the tax burden on everyone else."

Learn something new

612 posted on 11/06/2002 10:37:05 PM PST by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Gorest Gump

613 posted on 11/06/2002 10:38:33 PM PST by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Imagine the politics if the Dems choose to filibuster this!

If the story is true and if it gets going in Congress -- well the Democratic party is history. Burnt toast, hold the butter!

614 posted on 11/06/2002 10:43:37 PM PST by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; palmer; Principled
For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases. ~~ Not at all. The only ones held liable for collection and remittence of the tax are sellers and they are required to save copies of reciepts issued for the goods they sell.

You know, I've brought a lot of arguments against the NRST in my time (back when I was "Uriel1975"). I am convinced that some of my arguments are still economically-valid (such as my argument for the "purchasing advantage" that Public Sector Demand would enjoy over Private Sector Demand under an NRST); I just now think that the benefits of the NRST vastly outweigh such abstruse and hard-to-calculate "disadvantages".

One of my more economically-intricate arguments was that the NRST would "disadvantage" the Tax Free Municipal market (I think you'll remember that one, "ancient geezer")... except that the recent "bubble" in Treasury Bond prices has left Triple-A-insured Tax Free Municipals yielding more than Treasuries!! (Meaning two things: 1. my earlier argument against the NRST no longer holds any water, and 2. smart American investors should sell their taxable Treasuries to the stupid Japanese and buy Triple-A-insured Tax Free Municipals instead).

I am glad to say, however, that I never once offered the ridiculous (no offense, "Palmer") argument that under an NRST, "everyone would have to report all their purchases".

That's like saying that "under a State Sales Tax, I would have to file a form with the Statehouse every time I buy a cheeseburger from McDonalds".

Meaning no offense to anyone, it's a dumb and silly argument.

615 posted on 11/06/2002 10:49:23 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Tree of Liberty
Bush is looking at the MA vote on the income tax!!!! To the trash bin with Dick Morris and his triangulation strategies, such as "compassionate conservatism." This election has shown a sharp CONSERVATIVE trending in middle America, and splintering of the Liberal base (rise of Green, left-wing independents, etc.). It will give him an opportunity to use Reagan's strategy of pushing conservative principle as policy and thereby polarizing politics in order to split off the extremists from the Democratic Party (driving them into third parties, like the Greens -- over Iraq, health care socialism, etc.), which forces Libs in the DEM party to get more leftist to keep them, and coopts the LIBs to DRIVE moderates into the conservative camp. GO RIGHT MR. PRESIDENT!!! GO! GO! GO! While you are doing that, please don't forget to trash the Libertarian subversives and their policies (and Rush Limbaugh , please dump that ex-Marxist and anti-nationalist consumer uber alles Walter Williams !) to keep the Republican base from splintering in the process. Indeed, you would take away the only issue that most people (certainly here in MA) even care to vote for the LP for -- lower income tax rates (by the way, any party -- the Dem-LP comintern alliance in this case -- that advances trade with terror-state Cuba is an ENEMY fifth column -- period).


616 posted on 11/06/2002 10:57:45 PM PST by CaptIsaacDavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4; Jim Robinson; Principled; ancient_geezer
That's a cute picture.

Replacing the Income Tax with an NRST would be tremendous. Absolutely FReepin' tremendous.

But GWB would have to do a lot more than that to earn a "Rushmore".
Look at the Competition, fer cryin' out loud.

On the other hand, Reagan has already earned his Rushmore.

I'd pay green money to see Teddy Roosevelt (who never did anything more than infect the Republican Party with "Progressives" -- i.e., Liberals -- and help the Warmonger Democrat Wilson get elected in 1912) get his smirking face dynamited off that block...

...and Ronald "Tear Down This Wall" Reagan carved in his stead.

617 posted on 11/06/2002 10:58:28 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
We could probably get around the 16th amendment ...

No. You don't get "around" an admendment.

You repeal the admendment, as the current NRST bills state.

Without the 16th amendment, the USSC has declared several times that an income tax is unconstitutional.

The IRS may survive as a bunch of G-6 bean-counters --but i doubt it.

618 posted on 11/06/2002 11:01:18 PM PST by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tree of Liberty
Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. I just thought you were thinking Cavuto just "brainstormed" such a thought and I just wanted to say I thought he was capable of investigating to the point that such a question would not have been a surprise.

I think Cavuto does his homework - and I suspect he just heard a rumor and decided to take a chance with it.
619 posted on 11/06/2002 11:06:38 PM PST by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: dano1
How will minorities feel about this? Who cares?

I care. We have to earn their votes too.

actually, no ... we don't. what do we need: 100% of the black vote, or, oh, say, 3 or 4% of the white vote? ding. that's right ... if the republicans stopped alienating white voters with their me too gay affirmative action crap, well, the blacks could vote or not and it wouldn't make any difference.

simple mathematics.

***

Whoops, sorry. I guess I should read before I reply.

no ... you should think before you reply.

620 posted on 11/06/2002 11:22:37 PM PST by johnboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,081-1,088 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson