REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS

[JoeyRamone 0]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN AUG 01, 2004 21:01:25 ET XXXXX

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...

[kallend 2,027]

It will NEVER happen. Too many tax attorneys and accountants have a vested interest in the current system.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[newsstand 0]

Just think what getting rid of the IRS would do to the unemployment rate.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[PhillyKev 0]

A domestic centerpiece for the first term was privatizing SS. That would be a whole lot easier than this proposal and they haven't made any headway with that.

All talk, no action.

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

privatizing SS

I'll be honest -- I see such negative downstream effects from privatizing SS (if by that you mean turning over control to the indivicuals to manage their own SS money).

Not for people who make good decisions, but for people who don't. Why? Because they'll need to live anyway; many of them will be disabled by old age and lack of skills, and if they compounded their problems by making poor choices for their SS, then someone will have to pick up the tab.

It's a really good idea as long as things turn out well; kind of like insurance. Saving money by not having insurance works until you need insurance for something catastrophic. Then you don't do without -- instead, you go too long (which compounds what might have been a small health pooblem), and if something catastrophic happens, you're not going to be denied most care.

Rehab and the like, maybe. Which is a pity, because it often has excellent buyback in terms of returning someone to better employability. ICU, ER, trauma team? Nope. Good thing, too -- a number skydivers would be denied care when they biffed.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[storm1977 0]

Quote

It will NEVER happen. Too many tax attorneys and accountants have a vested interest in the current system.

HAY I agree with Kallend.

I wish it would happen though. I have been one rooting for a flat tax with no deductions for years now!!!! Too many CPA and Lawyers would be out of work though I guess.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[JoeyRamone 0]

I am sick of paying 38% every year....

[newsstand 0]

Bragging are we?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It will NEVER happen. Too many tax attorneys and accountants have a vested interest in the current system.

Like democrats aren't the party of lawyers already, anyway.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[markd_nscr986 0]

***It will NEVER happen. Too many tax attorneys and accountants have a vested interest in the current system.


I agree with Kallend........elimination of the IRS has a snowball's chance in Hell...........so why not concentrate their efforts on streamlining the tax code (again)

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[JoeyRamone 0]

Just a fact of life for many people...I am not here to brag....

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

It will NEVER happen. Too many tax attorneys and accountants have a vested interest in the current system.

Like democrats aren't the party of lawyers already, anyway.

havent you been paying attention?? they are ALL lawyers

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Kennedy 0]

touche'

then again, I don't like either party, so I'm still in the clear




and I meant party to represent lawyers, not that they were lawyers (though they are)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I am sick of paying 38% every year....

Quit your job then. Become a DZ bum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[storm1977 0]

15% flat tax for anyone making over 20K/year and a 1% national sales tax.

No more bogus deductions.

It would put almost everyone on an even playing field. The Wealthy would be paying 15% I would be paying 15%. You make more you pay more. Also those corporate bogus deductions would need to go. I for one would keep the Morgage intrest deduction since that helps the economy considerably.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Zennie 0]

God this is such a transparent ploy to draw disaffected libertarian types into the Republican fold right before the election.

We've been arguing for this for years and just now they get around to thinking it's a good idea? And as-if it would actually make it through Congress.

Nice try....

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Kennedy 0]

You realize that would bankrupt the government in a year, right?

Remember the richest what, ten percent pay half the nations taxes, right? (somebody fill in the right numbers, but those are a fair illustration) Since they're taxed between 50-60%, cutting half the nations taxes by two thirds would reduce federal income by one third.

I much prefer a higher sales tax (figured into the listed price, not added on) and little to no income tax.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

You run into the same problem then. Since the richest people aren't spending much of their money, but rather re-investing it, they you're still cutting off a huge chunk of revenue. That's why I think a sales tax combined with investment tax would work better.

[Zennie 0]

An investment tax would be an even bigger nightmare to manage than the current income tax. When you you calculate taxable income? By appreciated value? What if the value goes back down again?

Keep it simple...

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[billvon 2,998]

> 15% flat tax for anyone making over 20K/year and a 1% national sales tax.

That's about half what you need to run the government in its current form. Where does the rest of the money come from?

[PhillyKev 0]

Capital gains. We already have it. You pay tax on realized profit.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Capital gains. We already have it. You pay tax on realized profit.

Ah OK, I thought maybe you were referring to another type of system.

Carry on!

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[goalie35 0]

Quote

> 15% flat tax for anyone making over 20K/year and a 1% national sales tax.

That's about half what you need to run the government in its current form. Where does the rest of the money come from?

Cut its functions down to what's Constitutionally mandated, and you wouldn't need a tenth of what they spend now.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

God this is such a transparent ploy to draw disaffected libertarian types into the Republican fold right before the election.

We've been arguing for this for years and just now they get around to thinking it's a good idea? And as-if it would actually make it through Congress.

Nice try....

This is exactly why the third parties are important. When their ideas get enough attention the main parties adopt them.

It is the same reason that Greenpeace and The Eagle Forum are important. They bring forward the truly different ideas and if enough people begin to like them the ideas become main stream.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[billvon 2,998]

>Cut its functions down to what's Constitutionally mandated, and
>you wouldn't need a tenth of what they spend now.

As the constitution very plainly calls out the need for armed forces, and they are currently around 50% of our budget, I think that hoping for any more than a 33% cut would be very wishful thinking indeed. On top of the military you have the justice department, treasury, pay for elected officials and judges - all of which is called out in the constitution. Then you've also got that pesky "promote the general welfare" clause.