It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TAXES: Will the Republicans abolish the IRS?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I must admit I thought I wa seeing things when I saw this headline. Could it really happen? Could the Republicans succesfully abolish the dinosaur IRS and replace it with something with less loopholes?
 


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.

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.


wnd.com...
wnd.com...

[edit on 3-8-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]




posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I like the concept of this proposal. Working overtime would mean more money in YOUR pocket, it's an incentive. I can see the logic but is it something that IS in the works or is it an election ploy. Typically, tax reform is pulled out a election time, then quickly shelved afterwards.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I do not think that they will Abolish it But i think that they should to fullfill the promise that they made he American Public Decades ago during World War II. If everyone remembers Correctly The Income Tax Was implemented to help Pay for the war and the American People were told that after the War the Income tax would Be Abolished here we are Decades later and We are still paying an Icome tax....do I think it will Happen NO do I WANT it to happen YES


[edit on 3-8-2004 by Truth_Hunter_1976]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
How quickly we forget... here are my opinions on a VAT tax

Good

1) It puts the money almost entirely in individuals hands and lets them spend it they way they want to

2) It eliminates the IRS (yeah we all hate it :-) )

3) Illegal immigrants would be taxed as well

4) It would be a lot harder to cheat on your taxes

Bad

1) Would be VERY hard to implement and maintain

2) If someone found a loophole they could get everything way cheaper

3) Would still need to be some sort of refund system

4) Government would have a reason to track everything you buy



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lockheed
Bad

1) Would be VERY hard to implement and maintain

2) If someone found a loophole they could get everything way cheaper

3) Would still need to be some sort of refund system

4) Government would have a reason to track everything you buy


Your good points alone make this worth considering but lets address the bad.

1) It is not difficult to implement and maintain, I've been dealing with just this sort of tax for years.

2) There is no loopholes. With the sophistication of today's computers, you are taxed on what you buy. You can't cheat.

3) Yes, you need a refund system. We recieve ours quarterly.

4) You got me on that one. That is the only drawback I see to this proposal.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Bleys - Libertarian Team

What would the country gain from a VAT tax or a National sales tax? Absolutely nothing. Whether you are taxed up front, during the week or at the end of the end year - you are still being taxed too much.

The real problem - government waste and bureacracy. For example:


Our goverment spends millions of dollars in Public Service Announcements, educational materials, etc. warning Americans of the dangers of smoking. But then also spend millions of dollars to subsidize the tobacco farmers themselves.


Without a complete overhaul of the budgeting process, either through legislative mandate or constitutional amendment the federal government wil continue to waste our tax dollars.

The Libertarian party is willing to accept such a mandate and implement those changes. Libertarian Party



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I think you've hit on the real issue here Bleys, its not how they get our money that is the problem, its what they do with it. The Democrat National Convention cost taxpayers $40 million dollars due to increased security. Also the Federal Election Commission gives $15 million to each party to hold their convention. What do these conventions do? Give people an excuse to watch CNN or other 24 hour news networks just to hear some extremely partisan views.

Take a look at this article
www.truthnews.net...

"Not all Americans know their taxes fund both the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. In fact, the political parties receive nearly $15 million apiece from the Federal Election Committee to hold their conventions. Checking the little box on your 1040 form to give one dollar to the parties changes nothing, as the convention money comes from general revenues whether you check the box or not."

and I totally agree intrepid, government computers tracking what you buy dosen't really sound like a good idea.

[edit on 8/3/2004 by lockheed]

[edit on 8/3/2004 by lockheed]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I will repete here what I said on another thread

If the Republicans intended to abolish income tax what has been stopping them?

They control the senete the congress and the white house, if they intended to do it it would have already been done.

I see this as just another voter bait for the upcoming election.

If you REALLY want to see the IRS gone vote for .......

Guess who.........


Mike Badnarik



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I will repete here what I said on another thread
If the Republicans intended to abolish income tax what has been stopping them? They control the senete the congress and the white house, if they intended to do it it would have already been done.


It simply cannot be legislated away. The Democrats could Fillibuster an attempt. However, as stated the proposal has merits that need to be considered.

1) the tax would be spread uniformy across the population. If you are buying a $300,000 Rolls, you would pay more than a person buying a Corolla for basic transportation.

2) The number of loopholes would in effect be eliminated. No more deductions, no more off shore tax shelters etc. The tax would be added into each purchase you make.

3) Basic foodstuff should not be taxed.

4) It would be a fair way to tax. The poor would pay less in the long run. Richer Americans would shoulder a greater burden. Also, avenues traditionaly avalible to the rich such as accountants etc. would be of no advantage.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Aside from the injustice, the operation of the US tax system itself is
a major drain on the economy amounting to a national scandal.

Accurate estimates show that each year over $6 billion worth of man
hours is required just to comply with the US Internal Revenue Code.
Add up all costs of tax compliance (accountants, lawyers, etc.) and
Americans pay over $100 billion annually, a cost figure that does not
even include actual taxes paid! The administrative costs of the bloated
110,000 employee-IRS bureaucracy alone exceeds $10 billion a year.

When the first national income tax became law in 1913, the entire
Internal Revenue Code fit into a slim volume with 173 pages. Today,
the IRC contains over 18,000 pages of laws, regulations, advisories
and rulings. Forms, instructions, orders and notices take many
thousands more pages. Source #1, Source#2



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hype... It's all hype, you watch this issue get swept under the rug after election time.

Congress is supposed to have all the power to cut or hike taxes.
The president can veto em but not cut or hike taxes, and I strongly believe that when you cut taxes, a robust economy happens, I can just imagine what could happen when you take em away... Government needs to stop being so intrusive and the only person that will walk the talk in this issue is Badnarik, he trusts you to run your own life, the left and right will always get their jollie's by shaking your pockets then pulling your pants down.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
www.lp.org...


Here is the Libertarian stand on income taxes.


Do the Republicans even come close?

And forget the Democrats



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Personally, I like what is being proposed by the Rep. I just don't believe it will come to fruition.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
What Badnarik Says:
Badnarik has also proposed eliminating the IRS ... and anyone who listens to him say it believes he means it. "I'm not Dennis Hastert or Trent Lott or Bob Dole," he says. "And I'm not George W.Bush.

Bush promised us tax cuts, too. And he delivered -- a whopping 1%, phased in over ten years. Some honeymoon. We shaved our legs for this?"

Badnarik's proposal has teeth. He wants to repeal the 16th Amendment. "If we don't get rid of the authority for the income tax, it won't go away. We'll end up with Hastert's national sales tax or value added tax or whatever ... and the income tax, too."

The key?

"If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut spending," he says.
"The republicans have proven for the last four years that they aren't willing to do that. Running up debt to be paid off by inflating the currency or taxing our grandchildren isn't an answer."

Even excluding defense, federal spending -- along with the deficit -- is now at its highest level since WWII.



From the Badnarik newsletter I just got in my email now.


[edit on 4-8-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I agree, we need to not only repeal Income Tax, but reduce spending as well. I'd also like to point out an assertion made in the first article of the original post:


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.


I don't understand how they can make this assertion. Prices are dictated mainly by demand. Cost of production will have a small affect and thats when demand rates stay the same. If demand were to increase, which it most certainly will, then we can expect to see the prices rise rather than fall as a result of this sales tax.

I offer as an example, this thread on ATS: www.abovetopsecret.com....

These medicare discounts did not affect the drug companies whatsoever. But the fact that the consumer had more money to spend was an incentive to the companies to raise prices.

And if you want to see what the Fair Tax Act will really do, I'd advise you to check out:Fair Tax Act Text. I'm still reading, so I'll respond about this later.

My opinion is that there is no telling what this Act will do to consumer price. This Act may turn out worse than Income Tax in the amount of extra money paid, there is no garuantee that workers will be paid more either. But ultimately, to figure out this Act, the text will need to be read. I'm all for the reducing the size of government to such an extent that massive amounts of taxes are not needed.

****EDIT
After reading a couple sections, I have already releasized they do not mean to repeal the 16th amendment at all, but rather replace sections of the Tax Code. One thing I've found already:

CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking subtitle H (relating to financing of Presidential election campaigns),


I haven't read up on subtitle H, but what I'm thinking is that Campaign Finance will no longer be an issue as a result of striking this, mainly because it will be non-existant it seems. As well, presidential campaigns are run by corporations/businesses that say something like Bush Cheney 04, Inc. and these will not be subject to taxation either.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The primary goal for reducing taxes is to increase personal freedom. Your money enables you greater choice and more freedom in your actions. When the government forces you to give them some of your money they decrease your freedom in two ways. They take away some of your power, your ability to conduct commerce and they add to their power, their abiilities to wage optional wars, give money to other countries, pass new laws and otherwise act in ways beyond the necessary function of government. When Uncle Sam garnishes 30% of your paycheck instead of 10%, He is taking away 20% of your ability to pay for your children's college, or your morgage and he is increasing his power three-fold to require more money later.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Im just a layman in the American world of Taxes, but from what I have read from the Constitution Partys web site It seem to me to make sense,

taking out of context from
Taxes 'Quote'
We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.
Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)
more

So I guess all the parties say this untill they are elected?

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I will just say that I am not EXTREMELY educated on taxes, and or tax reform. But while I think of a Value Added Tax, or a National Sales Tax all I can think of is the price of toliet paper going through the roof the next time Our President wants to go to war. Currently I am paying a state sales tax of about 7%. If you want to add another 10% national tax on top of that, then a $1.99 4 roll pack of toliet paper goes from $2.13 to $2.33. But what if 10% isn't enough? Now they need 20%! My state will also most likely take the oppurtunity to raise their tax also, to say 15%. Now my 4 rolls of toliet paper cost me $2.69. 70 cents tax on a 2 dollar item? Good thing I can't afford to buy food after that.

I think sales taxes should be left to fund the states. The federal government has gotten to large to begin with. Instead of figuring out how to provide them with enough money to mantain the current level of bloat, we should look at how to downsize the federal government.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Im just a layman in the American world of Taxes, but from what I have read from the Constitution Partys web site It seem to me to make sense,

taking out of context from
Taxes 'Quote'
We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency.


If this is an actual party platform - and I say this with all respect possible - its nuts.

The arguments that the 1) Internal Revenue Service is an illegal and unconstitutional agency and 2) the 16th amendment was not properly ratified or don't provide authority for an unapportioned tax are classic "tax protestor" arguments that have been shot down time and time again by the US Courts.



The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, clearly states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


and



"Plaintiff attempts to circumvent this conclusion (the validity of taxes) by arguing that the IRS is 'a private corporation' because it was not created by 'any positive law' (i.e., statute of Congress) but rather by fiat of the Secretary of the Treasury. Apparently, this argument is based on the fact that in 1953 the Secretary of the Treasury renamed the Bureau of Internal Revenue as the Internal Revenue Service. However, it is clear that the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 7801, and has the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the laws. See 26 U.S.C. 7803(a). Pursuant to this legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS. 26 C.F.R. 601.101. The end result is that the IRS is a creature of 'positive law' because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff's own 'positive law' premise, the, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a 'private corporation.'" Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D.Ind. 1984).


 

But we are digressing from the real point of the post.

Is the republican's proposal even feasible?

Where are the details?

How will it affect you and yours?

What would the democratic response be to such a proposal?



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lockheed

4) Government would have a reason to track everything you buy



Originally posted by intrepid

4) You got me on that one. That is the only drawback I see to this proposal.


In all honesty I think just about everything we do is already tracked. Either through credit cards, the internet or even jut as statistics. If someone really wanted to know how much I spend per month on toilet paper they could probably find out.


Personally I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if they were used for social causes such as free health care. I was in a job (or no job) for about a year and a half that didn't have health insurance for employees. Finding health insurance for myself that wasn't sky high was a nightmare, if I had a family as well it would have been almost inaffordable. But that's another issue.

I think what really needs to be addressed is how we spend tax revenue. The Green Party wants to cut military spending by 50%. Want to know just how much money is being spent on the war in Iraq alone? Check it out: Cost of War

To end with a quote from the above site:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join