Bush To Abolish IRS In Second Term?

[MMMMMM]

Comments?

"THE POWER TO DESTROY
Read GOP lips:
No more IRS
Hastert hints of Bush's secret plan to end income tax in his 2nd term

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 2, 2004
9:30 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Is it real or is it an election year scheme to win votes?

That's the question many in this town are asking about House Speaker Dennis Hastert's proposal to eliminate the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service in a second Bush administration.

In his upcoming book, "Speaker: Lessons from Forty Years in Coaching and Politics," Hastert says the bold move – sure to be immensely popular with voters – will be the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda in a second term.

Hastert, for his part, says he will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax.

"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," he writes in "Speaker," set for release tomorrow.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, offered a preview of the House GOP leadership's post-election tax agenda in a March speech in which he said the Republicans are determined to repeal the federal income tax.

Long an advocate of a national sales tax, a confident DeLay told a conference of tax lobbyists that House Republicans will have hearings and push the issue in 2005 and 2006.

He said that replacing the income tax, payroll and other related federal taxes would provide more money for people to use, and he endorsed a proposal from Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., for a national sales tax.

Yet, even as Republican leaders in the GOP-led House, Senate and Bush White House have praised the concept of tax simplification over the last 3 1/2 years, the U.S. tax code has been expanded by over 10,000 pages as the Bush tax cuts and other changes – part of a total of 227 changes to the code – were implemented.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult," admits Hastert. "Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad."

Americans for Fair Taxation has been pushing the plan for years. Recently, the group has been pushing H.R. 25 as the vehicle.

"The current federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach. It's time for the FairTax," says the group's website. "From its humble beginnings, the income tax has grown like a cancer by taxing our hard work and discouraging savings and investment."

H.R. 25 would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax paid by the end user. That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed. The organization estimates consumer prices will drop by an estimated 20-30 percent as a result of the change.

The group's website describes how the bill's rebate function works. It assures that those living in poverty would not pay any tax.

"Under the FairTax, no American will pay taxes on necessities. The rebate will be equivalent to the tax paid on essential goods and services. The rebate will be mailed before the tax is actually paid [and] will be paid in equal installments at the beginning of the month. The size of the monthly rebate will be determined by the federal poverty level for a particular household size."

The bill's Senate version is S.1493, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., was introduced last year.

"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," writes Hastert. "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."

Would a campaign promise to eliminate the IRS be taken seriously? If the Bush administration were really planning such a dramatic move in a second term, why would campaign officials not be making more of it? Could Bush really deliver on a promise so bold?

These were some of the questions being asked around the Capitol today. Nevertheless, the leak from Hastert is sure to sell books.

"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity," Hastert continued. "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."

Previous stories:

Effort to dump income tax gains steam

Income tax to end within few years?

National sales tax gains momentum

Group plans 'fair tax' convention

Congress to consider 'fair tax'

Tax reform drive builds steam'"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39762

[Zeno]

Zeno is an amazing perscient political person. His firm stance as a 'vote for Bush plebeian' is working out in spades.

Four More Years.


-Zeno, The new Political Pundit and Clairvoyant Seer of the 'Other Topics Forum'.

[nothumb]

Well, on the one hand, I really, really hate paying social security and medicare when I don't use either and probably never will. And I hate paying for all kinds of crap that Bush and company do all over the world, and I hate paying for all the pork barrel crap at home.

On the other hand, this seems damn near impossible to me. They're talking about sending out rebates in advance to poor people? This would mean that the rich are going to pay the sales taxes on their purchases faithfully, including businesses and corporations, who we all know have a great track record of ponying up their share.

I know this would more or less cut loose the flimsy chains on the corporate behemoth and let it shove its giant gristledick into whichever of my orifices it pleases. I also fully expect this to happen anyway, so I'm not sure why I'm getting so uptight about it.

Basically, it sounds like some Gingrich fantasy and I know full well I'll get screwed in there somehow.

NT

[natedogg]

If Bush made this part of his platform, I'd actually vote for him, even though I think he's one of the worst presidents we've ever had, and his AG is the devil incarnate.

extramustard

[aloiz]

Hmm...If this were to happen what's to stop people from making the majority of their purchases online, and then not paying the required sales tax? At 23% the price difference would sure make people want try and find ways around it, and the easiest way is the internet. Granted I'm all for the idea of elminating income tax, but I'd be surprised if this becomes a campaign issue, and I doubt the bill will pass.

aloiz

[jokerswild]

Yeah right. Bush was going to lower taxes, increase the surplus, and let his oil buddies rape the public in 2000.

Iguess if you are wealthy he's done 2 out of 3. If you are in the middle, just 1 out of 3.

He sure has results: the Largest deficits ever. His oil pals are rolling in billions of war profits. He's only directly eresponsible for over 900 needless American deaths.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm...If this were to happen what's to stop people from making the majority of their purchases online, and then not paying the required sales tax?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought of that too while reading about this tax idea here. (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html) Specifically, I thought of eBay, which is where I make a lot of purchases. I figure that they'll add the 23% on to purchases wherever you buy things, including online.

If sellers try to circumvent the system, then they face punishment. With the IRS system, the taxpayers (us) face the punishment AND the burden of keeping track of their taxes (or paying someone too, ei, accountants).

Ten

[aloiz]

Yea I'd assume a site like ebay.com would be forced to automatically add on the sales tax, but I was thinking more along the lines of companies based in Canada or other countries.

aloiz

[MMMMMM]

Good question, especially as regards neighboring countries (since shipping costs would be lower with Canada of Mexico than with farther away countries).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
the Largest deficits ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

The deficits under Regean were larger.

Stu

[andyfox]

For many advocates of tax reform, in particular, the flat-taxers and the VATmen, the real objective it not the tax system per se but rather the size of government, their proposals merely tactical weapons in the battle to downsize government, and to lower the top marginal rate of the income tax.

Certainly, one would think, the U.S. tax system can be made simpler, it can be made fairer, and it proably can be made more conducive to economic growth. But meshing all three is not easy.

Virtually every developed country that ever had a national retail sales tax has now replaed it with a VAT. And none of the European VATs worked out to be as simple as the drawing-board version.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
Good question, especially as regards neighboring countries (since shipping costs would be lower with Canada of Mexico than with farther away countries).

[/ QUOTE ]

From CATO Institute: (http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html)

A national sales tax would be border adjusted--so that exports would not be taxed but imports would be. Imported goods would be taxed when sold in the United States or when brought into the country by a consumer.

I know that doesn't say how they'd prevent tax evasion... but I'm still looking. (This has gotten me interested)

Ten

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
Good question, especially as regards neighboring countries (since shipping costs would be lower with Canada of Mexico than with farther away countries).

[/ QUOTE ]

(I haven't found the actual answer yet...) But what about this: We inspect packages at the borders to insure that there is a "tax paid" stamp or something? (Don't just say "those can be forged" because there are ways around ANYTHING, nothing's 100%)

Anyway.. there's probably an answer.

Ten

[Luv2DriveTT]

Move along people, this is old news. Not only that but the ideal of VAT (value added tax) comes from the left, Ralph Nader, and (gasp!) Perot first. Its a valiant idea that I think is LONG overdue, but it is not something we can grasp while the nation is at war. What happens if the new system fails to getnerate enough revenue? That would be a real horror show at a time when our nation cannot afford to get the materials our boys and girls overseas need to stay alive (bullit-proof vests anyone)?

My position -

I am FOR the development of a VAT
I am FOR the abolishment of tax writeoffs
I am for an 8 year rollout schedule. Give the people a chance to think about it, and vote their representatives out of office if they disagree with congress's plans.

Lastly - just cause the idea of a VAT sounds good, it doesn't mean it will be implimented fairly. So lets not all jump behind this just cause it sounds good, the proof is in the pudding!

PS: Did I mention I want to run for office someday?

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[MMMMMM]

Did Nader and Perot advocate replacing the federal income tax with a VAT--or just adding a VAT?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I hate to rain on the parade, but a VAT tax in and of itself doesn't solve the overall problem. Sure, I'd welcome not having to worry about reporting online poker winnings, and I guess, from that perspective, I'd support the idea.

However, until we address the misconception that its the place of government to fund every good idea that gets proposed from the general coffers, we're just going to end of switching the onus of ever-ncreasing demands for funds for economically unsound projects from income to consumption, with the same resulting drain on the economy.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
However, until we address the misconception that its the place of government to fund every good idea that gets proposed from the general coffers, we're just going to end of switching the onus of ever-ncreasing demands for funds for economically unsound projects from income to consumption, with the same resulting drain on the economy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. However, definining income for all income earners in our society is a complicated endeavor. As a simplification plan this idea may work but then again defining consumption for everyone may be problematic as well.

[MMMMMM]

I generally agree, but would note two things:

1) that a consumption tax would encourage savings and investment more than does an income tax= a plus for America, IMO

2) that abolishing the IRS and the vast complex tax code for a more efficient system would save money in and of itself for nearly everyone

So while government overspending is the biggest bugaboo, the method by which federal funds are raised does make a difference

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Exactly. However, definining income for all income earners in our society is a complicated endeavor. As a simplification plan this idea may work but then again defining consumption for everyone may be problematic as well.

Agreed

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

that abolishing the IRS and the vast complex tax code for a more efficient system would save money in and of itself for nearly everyone

Why does a VAT assume no IRS?

[andyfox]

1) Switching to a consumption tax would theoretically remove any negative impact to save and invest. But the degree of any increase in saving that would come about from improving incentives to save is not certain. In recent history, the periods with the highest incentives to save coincided (paradoxically) with the lowest rates of actual savings. Most economists say (or, should I say, guess) that private saving is probably not too responsive to the after-tax rate of return, so that switching to a consumption tax would not be too likely to increase the quantity of saving all that much.

2) As far as simplification goes: a VAT could indeed provide an enormous amount of simplification. A Congressional Budget Office study in 1998 estimated administrative and compliance costs of between 2.7 and 4.7% for a VAT; this compares with what now is probably around 10% for the current system.

But the evidence from European countries' VATS shows that they are no less costly to collect and enforce than their income taxes are. It appears that this is the case because "simple" VATs, once they get through the hands of the politicians (and it is a complicated, messy world) don't turn out to be so simple after all.

[andyfox]

A VAT would require a strong enforcement system to monitor unregistered businesses, exaggerated refund claims, unrecorded cash purchases, underreported sales, false export claims, etc.

[riverflush]

( Waiting for the 2+2 liberal brigade to jump into this topic to tell us how a VAT replacing income tax will ruin the world while benefiting "the rich" )

[jcx]

This idea unfortunately won't go anywhere. There are just too many people utterly dependent on the current system. Add this to a lack of political will and the end result can only be the status quo. There are currently 100,000 employees if the IRS. 90% of them could be laid off under the proposed system (A small amount would needed for support functions and enforcement to audit merchants and ensure they actually turned over the sales tax to the government). Add to this countless CPA's, Tax Attorneys, Enrolled Agents and all of their staff and you are talking about serious loss of livelihood. These groups will fight tooth and nail to keep the system as it is.

Don't bet on the politcal will to push this through. I'd lay a large amount of money that Mr. Hastert's congressional district does not include an IRS Service Center. A nice chunk of IRS employees are in DC. A Senator or Congressman in nearby MD or VA would fight this to the death, it would be political suicide not to. You see, the people that run govt agencies may be inept, but they are very shrewd in the way they spread their operations throughout the country. There really is no reason for there to be more than a couple of IRS Service Centers, one for the western US and one for the east. But there are several in areas as widely scattered as Fresno CA, Ogden UT, and Kansas City, MO. This is done because the govt agencies know the local politicians will fight to keep these jobs in their district.

Another thing to consider is that most states base their tax system on the Federal Govt and if the income tax is sacked that revenue has to come from somewhere. This will either mean larger property tax or higher state sales taxes.

So while I agree that in principle getting rid of the IRS is a good idea, like Kurn said without dramatically reducing the size of government as a whole it is not going to be all that useful.

[Cyrus]

I can't stop laughing from reading the title of your post! It's only, what?, a decade since Bush Father promised to freeze taxes? No more taxes - yeah, right.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Now you ask us to believe that FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF ANY NATION ON EARTH the US Prez is going to lower taxes while the country is at war! Never happen. Never happen. Never, never happen.

...I'm telling you, if nothing else, this campaign sure has its moments of high insanity and fear mixed with sudden doses of total mirth! Go, Dubya!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

As a proud member of the 2+2 liberal brigade, I haven't researched the proposal, or the VAT in general, enough to know whether it will ruin the world while benefiting the rich.

I do know that VATs are now levied in almost every industrialized country in the world and over 120 countries worldwide and that most adopted them to replace either retail sales taxes or general business taxes.

[cardcounter0]

Worldnetdaily ??? I won't believe this until I hear from confirmation from the KKK and the Moonies.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

No wonder MMMMMM's cognitive and reasoning powers are equal a skid row alky, if he is reading crap from sources like these. Better if you tune in Fox News.

[lu_hawk]

[ QUOTE ]
However, until we address the misconception that its the place of government to fund every good idea that gets proposed from the general coffers, we're just going to end of switching the onus of ever-ncreasing demands for funds for economically unsound projects from income to consumption, with the same resulting drain on the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship. --- The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence; from dependence back to bondage.” Professor Alexander Tyler, 1787.

[/ QUOTE ]

[elwoodblues]

(waiting for you to provide an opinion of your own in the interim)

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying it does; somehow the subject seemns to have gotten changed from a consumption tax replacing the income tax, to a VAT tax (replacing or not replacing) the income tax /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[playerfl]

I don't like bush either but if i thought this would happen i would vote for him. However I trust that hell will freeze over first.

[MMMMMM]

Good points overall, but I'll bet that the 100,000 IRS employees that would fight tooth and nail for their jobs are a minuscule number of people compared to the number of people who would love to see the IRS disappear.

[MMMMMM]

So you think WND is making up quotes from Senator Hastert???

Look around if you want confirmation of Senator Hastert's quotes, I am sure it is there.

You should also really try to refrain from making so many derogatory personal remarks in these threads: it is not what the forums are intended for, and it adds absolutely nothing to these discussions except an unnecessary level of noise.

[MMMMMM]

"Now you ask us to believe that FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF ANY NATION ON EARTH the US Prez is going to lower taxes while the country is at war! Never happen. Never happen. Never, never happen."


Cyrus,

I didn't ask for you to believe anything. I asked only
for comments.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Good points overall, but I'll bet that the 100,000 IRS employees that would fight tooth and nail for their jobs are a minuscule number of people compared to the number of people who would love to see the IRS disappear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I agree. I don't think the biggest obstacle - even a big obstacle - to this proposal is the actual process of dismantling the IRS. Rather, I think the problem is that it will still require a strong enforcement system and place the burden of 'accounting' or whatever on many of the same people who already bear it (businesses and the wealthy). (I touched on this in my earlier post). So the promise of eliminating the need for CPA's seems a bit silly in this light. Plus, while this was being implemented, there would doubtlessly be loopholes. Anyone who supports this idea in principle has to acknowledge that the US tax system has for YEARS been practically giving money away to the exact same people who would be responsible for reporting and paying this tax. Strikes me as bad news.

NT

[jcx]

As a Libertarian getting rid of the income tax sounds great. However, another angle is that by taxing consumption only we may move ever closer to a completely cashless society and lose the last bit of privacy that remains. If we were to go to a consumption tax only people would simply turn to the underground economy to evade the tax wherever possible. Businesses could pad their profits (And thus steal the consumers tax money) by keeping 2 sets of books, using 2 cash registers, etc. What's to stop a mom and pop business like a pizza parlor from keeping 10-20% of sales off the books (Cash sales no doubt) and thus pocketing the sales tax? Nothing really.

I believe the end result of this would be a call to outlaw the use of currency (Under the guise of fairness) and order that all transactions that take place leave a paper trail. It does not tax the imagination too much that sometime in the not too distant future technology will exist to transfer the government its tax at the point of sale, thus eliminating the need for merchants to hold the tax in trust. This technology could have the added bonus of telling the government where you were everytime you spent any money, even on a pack of gum. Right now the government knows where I work & where I live, but not too much about my day to day habits. I'd prefer to keep it that way. A totally cashless society could turn into hell on earth in no time.

[MMMMMM]

Retailers collect sales tax for the government now. I haven't heard of this being a major problem so I don't see why it should be as bad as you fear to expand on that principle.

[MMMMMM]

I agree with your caveats and fears but let's consider that right now a lot of people work "under-the-table" or have unreported income. I don't see why one scenario is more likely than the other to generate calls for a cashless society.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
If this were to happen what's to stop people from making the majority of their purchases online, and then not paying the required sales tax?

[/ QUOTE ]

A national sales tax would most likely apply in that situation.

[cardcounter0]

You mean the Hastert that wondered if Sen. McCain (tortured while a POW) knew what wartime sacrifice was?

"As other House GOP members stood behind him laughing, Hastert, R-Illinois, then expressed doubt that McCain was indeed a Republican.

Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."

or do you mean that Hastert that might be going being bars soon?

"The Treasury Department inspector general Thursday opened an inquiry into alleged improper meddling by House Speaker Dennis Hastert in a pending loan guarantee application by United Airlines."

Do you have any sources other than a religious/right-whacko web site quoting this buffon blowhard?

[MMMMMM]

...just throwing this up for discussion (hope that's OK with you;-)).


"Do you have any sources other than a religious/right-whacko web site quoting this buffon blowhard?"


No, go look them up if you care so much, I am not your grandmother. If you have a problem with WND you are certainly not restrained from trying a little Google for other sources. Alternatively, please feel free to call Senator Hastert's office and enquire /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jokerswild]

He's the speaker of the house. He isn't too credible either. He tried to challenge John McCain's patriotism.
It's funny how cowards scream about their own patriotism.

Good to see how up on politics you are, MMM.

[Cyrus]

"Making No Claims For Credibility just throwing this up for discussion."

Please! No mention of the words "throwing up" in this thread. We are that close already!

..And a word of advice (that will surely go astray as usual): When you put up "issues" for discussion, it's good to know when you are being hypothetical (as seems to be the case in the IRS hoax), or have a credible source to back up the main story. (The WND sewer is a credibly source for crap.)

[Cyrus]

I mean, since this is a conservative President, surely, there must have been up to now, something like what a dozen, half a dozen, how many bills that Congress approved and he vetoed? Congress is prone to approve of spending stuff but George W Bush is a fiscal conservative. So he must have vetoed a lot of bills. (How else can he cut taxes and decrease the damn deficit, right?)

Anyone has the exact figure of number of bills vetoed by George?

M > "I didn't ask for you to believe anything. I asked only for comments."

Can't you read? This was my comment: "You ask us to believe that FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF ANY NATION ON EARTH the US Prez is going to lower taxes while the country is at war? Never happen." What part of my comment did you not understand?

[MMMMMM]

Here below is Drudge story. Google also shows Washington Post link to story right at the very top of the page (Hastert's Dream: An IRS-Free Future) but Post requires registration to view.

I am really getting sick of the BS on this forum. Cyrus you should know better. Garbage attacks from jokerswild and cardcounter0 are to be expected but I am very disappointed in you.

First you asked if I "expected you to believe this" when all I did was post an article quoting Hastert and asking for comments. I was not saying that Hastert was correct; it was just a report of what he said. And the very title of my initial even had a question mark after it indicating that I was wondering whether Bush would really do what Hastert suggested he would do.

Now, and worse, you take my (justifiable) shrug-off of cardcounter0's post and jump on the bandwagon and even EXPAND to ask me if I admit to posting hoaxes. All I can say is I am very disappointed in you.

Also, the WND article clearly is no hoax, it is obviously just quoting Hastert, not claiming that everything Hastert said is necessarily true. Heck, the WND article even contained the following paragraph:

"Would a campaign promise to eliminate the IRS be taken seriously? If the Bush administration were really planning such a dramatic move in a second term, why would campaign officials not be making more of it? Could Bush really deliver on a promise so bold?"

Apologies will be accepted but not expected.




http://www.drudgereport.com/rnc.htm

"REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS

**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.

"“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

Developing..."

[cardcounter0]

Asked for backup from a credible source and you drudge up DRUDGE?

Here is a clue: Idiots will babble about almost anything. The person you are quoting has babbled nonsense before. Why should anyone even listen to this fool?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
M > "I didn't ask for you to believe anything. I asked only for comments."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't you read? This was my comment: "You ask us to believe that FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF ANY NATION ON EARTH the US Prez is going to lower taxes while the country is at war? Never happen." What part of my comment did you not understand?

[/ QUOTE ]


Where, Cyrus--exactly where--did I ask you to believe that?

I don't even think it very likely myself and I certainly never asked you to believe that.

Did you wake up on a different planet recently or something?

[MMMMMM]

Do you actually think both WND and Drudge would make up quotes from Hastert???

[cardcounter0]

In other words, his point is -- he has no point.

[MMMMMM]

My point was to offer something interesting for discussion.

By the way, you seem awfully fond of trying to "read into" what people post or write. Did it ever occur to you that some discussions can actually occur at a face value level? That some discussions can be exploratory in nature rather than agenda-driven?

[Cyrus]

Would you bet good money on a Drudge tip?

No need to answer that, here, ìn public. Just think it over. Improve yourself.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus are you too actually suggesting that both WND and Drudge made up quotes from Hastert?

What's more, as I pointed out, anyone who cares to register with Washington Post can read the story there.

I'm not registering with Post so I can't post it;-)

[Cyrus]

I see you are up to your old diversion tricks again. So happens, it is me you are trying to play that pathetic game with.

"Exactly where did I ask you to believe that? I don't even think it very likely myself and I certainly never asked you to believe that."

OK, here's how you canot get around my response: You asked for comments in this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=887745&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14). And my comment was, in this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=889407&page=25&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&fpart=#889407), that

I do not believe that Bush will be able to pull what no other leader in the history of the world has pulled, which is to decrease taxes when the country is at war. I know it has never happened and I believe it never will. Not for Bush and not for Kerry and not for anyone else.

There. That was my comment, in as plain prose as can be -- since you pretend not to understand when I am being sarcastic with you. That was my comment.

You are asking us to comment on a piece of garbage spin that Bush is gonna repeal the IRS or the income tax??!? My comment was "Go sell crazy somewher else". Only in more words.

Clear enough for ya ?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

"You are asking us to comment on a piece of garbage spin that Bush is gonna repeal the IRS or the income tax??!? My comment was "Go sell crazy somewher else". Only in more words."


I was asking for overall comments on the article and the statements by Hastert and the ideas contained therein--not just comments on that one particular angle.


H.R. 25 advocates a bill such as outlined in the article. You could comment on H.R. 25 if you cared to.

You could comment on Hastert's statements if you wished.

You could comment on the general idea of a sales tax versus an income tax, if you cared to.

You could comment on whether such a tax would be practical in the long run.

You could comment on whether revenues might initially drop catastrophically during the implementation of such a plan.

Your comment that Bush would never lower taxes during wartime is acknowledged. Thank you for the comment.

[Ray Zee]

sounds great doesnt it. but wait a minute. what about the people that have saved money all their lives. they have already paid taxes on it. now they get to pay again on their savings as they spend it. this way of taxation becomes a big tax on the middle and upper middle class. as the very rich tend not to spend as high a % of income on consumer goods.
in the end though you would end up with what amounts to a giant sales tax with exemptions for things that the rich invest in, with the income tax brought back in anyway.
the income tax is the best way as long as you are taxed once only in the front end. and the govt. doesnt blow away all its money quickly and have to keep coming back for more as it happens everywhere. that is where a true balanced budget is the real answer and having it enforced

[MMMMMM]

Hi Ray,


"sounds great doesnt it. but wait a minute. what about the people that have saved money all their lives. they have already paid taxes on it. now they get to pay again on their savings as they spend it."

That is presuming that a national sales tax (in lieu of an income tax) would actually raise consumer prices. But wait a minute...isn't the cost of an income tax already priced into the current prices of goods and services"

By removing the income tax, wouldn't the costs of goods and services fall commensurately, since that huge hidden cost would no longer exist? So it seems to me Mom and Pop would not end up paying more for things after all.

The slack in revenue could be taken up by the national sales tax--but without the immense associated costs of running the IRS and the enormous costs to everyone else in compliance efforts--and without the drain on productivity, savings and investment which a productivity tax (income tax) inflicts.

With less overhead and less onerous tax code requirements, businesses could become more competitive due to lower costs. Everything would be cheaper and the average person would have more money.

Everyone would be granted exemptions for the basic cost of living, so those in low-income brackets would not be forced to pay any tax.


On the budget note, I do agree that huge deficits are bad. In wartime or during a depression it may be necessary to run a deficit.

[jokerswild]

The article that you quote correctly identifies Dennis Hastert as the Speaker of the House. You refer him in the above posts as Sen. Hastert.

I guess that we need a little civics clas explaining the difference between the lower and upper houses. The class would emphasize that responsible citizens that regularly make public political statements should know who the Speaker of the House is becasue he's third in line to the Presidency.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you, jokerswild.

Some of the money that will be saved under Sir Hastert's plan will be earmarked for the ASPCA due to the large problem with strays. Of course that means the dogcatching staff will be increased significantly, so...please keep your eyes open when you are out and don't approach any friendly-seeming folk carrying nets or poles. I'd hate for anything to happen to you.


p.s. I left the Milk-Bones under the porch

[andyfox]

Lighten up, friend. I don't think our discussions here qualify as public political statements.

[jokerswild]

It is sad that right wing militaristic racists don't even know that the man that holds the third position in line to the Presidency isn't a Senator. It's also sad that people like this vote wholeheartedly for monetarist policies based upon nothing more than wishful thinking and greed.

Even George W.Bush knows that Hastert is a Congressman in the position of Speaker of the House.

[MMMMMM]

OK, that does it. I'm voting for whoever will hire the best dogcatchers, period. No Milk-Bones for a week, either. /images/graemlins/mad.gif Bad dog!

[Rooster71]

Abolishing the IRS is a good idea (not for the country, but to get Bush elected). Here is a likely scenario of the Bush tax plan:
1) Abolish the IRS.
2) Add the annual budget deficit to the $7.3 trillion national debt.
3) Blame the resulting mess on the Democrats.

[Zeno]

Squeaker, excuse me, Speaker of the House (or is that House Speaker), Sir Hastert, third in line for Top Bureaucratic Goofball of the US, has already secretly approved my plan for the invasion of Mexico and the stealing of half of Canada, as I posted about in another thread. All us fascists are in cahoots and this grand PLAN will be implemented as soon as Bush steals another election by voter and computer fraud.

My Kickback money will soon be in Switzerland and I already have my house in the Cayman Islands picked out.

Sweet Deal for me.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

I think we should add Saudi Arabia to that list. It would all be over far quicker than Iraq, and the oil infrastructure wouldn't need vast refurbishing, either.

In Saudi Arabia we could offer corporate incentives, implement monetarist policy, and solve our oil problems all in one fell swoop.

Why isn't there a candidate with the balls to stand up and announce this is what America needs?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't there a candidate with the balls to stand up and announce this is what America needs?

[/ QUOTE ]


Indeed! And that is the real question that needs mauled over by every person that participated in this 'Mother of all Threads'.

The lack of ballsy candidates. That's the conundrum.


-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't there a candidate with the balls to stand up and announce this is what America needs?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Indeed! And that is the real question that needs mauled over by every person that participated in this 'Mother of all Threads'.

The lack of ballsy candidates. That's the conundrum.

[/ QUOTE ]



Perhaps it has something to do with overall declining testosterone levels over the last century. The average male today has about half the testosterone level of the average male 100 years ago (attributable in part to a higher simple-carb diet, and the addition of some hormones to foods such as milk and poultry, and a more sedentary lifestyle which results in higher body fat levels. Higher body fat levels result in decreased testosterone levels and increased female hormone levels).

This might also explain why the 20th century saw such a preoccupation with the rise of the nanny state. Those without the stones to face the world prefer a government to take care of them and provide security from cradle to grave. Hence the rise of political systems such as socialism and communism.

Saudi Arabia has spawned and promoted a virulent anti-Western ideology, and even al-Qaeda itself, and thus is significantly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They have a small military and the best oil reserves/industry in the world. I don't see why we should take this crap from them and pay them through the nose for the privilege.

Our forefathers didn't worry and whine about things like welfare programs or "social security" or the fact that they only had two TVs and one old car. They worked far longer hours than we do on average, washed their own clothes, chopped firewood, hunted and fished, hauled produce, and took responsibility for their own lives instead of asking government to take responsibility for "society". They walked miles to school instead of walking a block to catch the bus. They forged ahead and overcame all manner of obstacles in a much tougher time than today, and they thanked Providence that they should be so blessed to live under freedom instead of under tyranny.

But no candidate today will have the gumption to do what needs to be done about Saudi Arabia or even to broach the subject. Fact is, that compared to our forefathers, we are basically a bunch of ballsless bastards.

[Ray Zee]

i think you are right there. also going with your plan i think we should boycott their meat supplies and give them all free bread and potatoes. soon they will be like us.

[andyfox]

"Saudi Arabia has spawned and promoted a virulent anti-Western ideology, and even al-Qaeda itself, and thus is significantly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They have a small military and the best oil reserves/industry in the world. I don't see why we should take this crap from them and pay them through the nose for the privilege."

Maybe that's the best reason to vote for Mr. Kerry as opposed to Mr. Bush, whose family has deep and abiding ties with the Saudis.