(Pol) I just made up my mind to vote Republican...

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
Of course you would, Cabal... but was there ever any chance you would have voted for Kerry before the Repubs pulled this little stunt? Don't kid a kidder... :D

Same goes for most of the other people who are so excited about this...

-A0-
 

milkydoo

Inactive
freebyrd said:
whatever they replace it with i'm sure will be worse
freebyrd
I'll agree with that. To believe that it wouldn't ultimately be worse is to believe that they actually have our best interests at heart. Either you believe it, or not, and I don't. I'd still love to see the IRS get the boot though. It would at least be entertaining.
 

truthseeker

Membership Revoked
ainitfunny said:
This is an empty shadow of a promise that will never be actually issued to the voters officially, but will circulate as a cultivated rumor until they are pressed to say they "promise to look into the feasibility of doing away with the IRS" will be enough to bait a large number of gullible voters to swing Republican.
Of course, it will be found unworkable, but more rules will be written to make it fairer we will be assured.

Chumps, fall for that and what you will get is the "new improved" IRS with all the withholding you now pay AND A NATIONAL SALES TAX AND A VALUE ADDED TAX TO BOOT.


Actually you wrong due to your "w" hatred. After the main reason for me being a Bush surpporter. He wants a cleaner more strait forward economy and tax system. Like the tax rebate several years back, it was several hundred dollars. It was nice, but really didnt make a diffrence in our lively hoods. But when multipled by millions, its was a direct cash infusion at all levels in the economy. It was a brillant move to stave off economic meltdown.

I hope they are follow through. We need to adress the meatier issues in our economy and this would be a great first jump.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
I never said I hate Bush. I do not hate him. I voted for him. I have since found him to be too easily manipulated by powerful people surrounding him who have their own agenda's. He has proven himself not very bright and exhibits the kind of stubborn attitude "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" defiance that a kid with a lying story about the drugs in his sock drawer would defiantly drop on his parents expecting to end the matter.

He appears to me to be easily suckered into grandiose promises, outrageous statements and threats, precipitous governmental decisions, and skating on legally thin ice to pursue and seize the glory, power, and that ever present temptation to make an indelible mark in history for his name and presidency that all the puppet masters around him use flatteryand "glorious leader" imagery to steer this ship of state like a rudder to where THEY plan it to go.

I am constantly amazed at leaders saying that America cannot do what is right because of the unflattering image it might present. Or, we don't want to "look" this way or that way to the rest of the world, so we must do unpleasant things to preserve our image. Can you imagine those guy's at God's right hand when he decided to come and humiliate and humble himself to take on human flesh, suffer and die at the hand of the people he gave life to in order to save them? "You can't do that, You are God! Nobody will fear and respect you! You have to maintain your distance from your creation, don't let them know what you are really like! You got all the power, you don't have to forgive any of 'em." Talk about setting aside your "image" to do what is right, we have been shown how the most powerful can do that out of love.
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
An elimination of the tax code is the one thing...

...that scares the Democrats the most. It totally crushes their support structure of pitting one group against another. :dvl2:

Too bad there are too many 'moderate' Republicans to actually drive it through. But it would be nice to see it get played up to add some interest to the election.

There is no way this country should be paying the billions in non-productive expenses it does to the H.R. Blocks of the world to comply with the tax code.

If the Dems truly wanted to see the "rich" 'pay their fair share' they would be in the forefront of this - but it's about power, and if you cannot demonize the situation to your advantage, what do you have left to advance your agenda - racial set asides?
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
My post from the "other" IRS thread:

JMHO and worth exactly what you paid for it...

The only way the IRS and income tax will EVER be abolished is at the business end of about 200 million guns. These proposals are just for "show". If I thought FOR A SECOND that it was legit, that'd be different.

Bush has been in 4 years. The so-called conservatives (small "c" intentional) have been in complete control for 2 years. WHY hasn't a bill been placed before congress?

Hmmmm....?

Cuz it's all a BULLSH*T smokescreen. Yup. Gotta keep the sheeple voting rep/dem. What's the best way to "put it over on 'em again" this cycle? Oh yeah, that income tax thingie...

:kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1:
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
There has been some slight movement in Congress...

Georgia Republican Congressman John Linder, has sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" (H.R. 25), a national retail sales tax on new goods and services. It would replace all individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes as well as capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes.

The Fair Tax replaces the way we are currently taxed, which is based on our annual income, with a tax on goods and services. The Fair Tax, basically, is a voluntary "consumption" tax. The more you buy, the more you pay in taxes. The less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

The federal government will continue to be fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare.

The Fair Tax will reduce the costs of goods and services by 20 to 30 percent. It will allow workers to keep 100 percent of their paycheck, pension and Social Security payments with the exception being state or local withholding
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
<b>...the exception being state or local withholding
</b>

Well, there you go. Some states (Oregon comes to mind) have an egregious income tax level...
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
Do I sense some hypocrisy??

The numerous here that would vote for a 3rd party candidate, (even thought the odds of a 3rd party Presidential nominee ever succeeding is almost infinitesimal) but will disregard a call for a replacement of the tax code because they "don't ever see it happening" is really surprising. :bwl:

1. Vertical Inequality.
Although equality under the law is a bedrock American principle, individuals pay greatly different shares of their earnings in taxes. IRS data show that income taxes average 26% for those earning more than $200,000, but 10% for those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. Joint Tax Committee data show that 39% of households pay no income tax at all. These inequities violate the spirit of equal protection guarantees in the Constitution, and cause many Americans to think that government programs have no cost.

2. Horizontal Inequality.
Even people with similar incomes are treated unequally by the many exemptions, deductions, and credits in the tax code. Taxes differ based on whether people are married or own a home, and whether they can benefit from the many narrow tax loopholes carved out by Congress. Rules for savings vehicles in the tax code also create damaging inequities. For example, many Americans do not have access to retirement savings accounts through employers.

3. Complexity and Ambiguity.
Certainty in the law is a bulwark against arbitrary and abusive government. But the income tax rests on an inconsistent and ambiguous base, and it spans 60,044 pages of laws and regulations, according to CCH Inc. Americans are baffled by the complex rules on capital gains, savings plans, education incentives, and other items. The IRS itself is also baffled by tax complexity--Treasury investigations in September and January found that IRS employees provided incorrect answers 55% and 83% of the time, respectively. Tax complexity is getting worse with 33 million Americans by the end of the decade facing double jeopardy by having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax on top of the regular income tax.

4. Instability of Tax Law.
Citizens are required to know the nation's laws and comply with them, but that is difficult when federal tax rules are constantly changing. Major tax bills contain hundreds of law changes, with many changes spurring years of regulatory and court activity before taxpayers have solid rules to follow. For example, changes in pension tax rules occur nearly every year, leaving employers struggling to comply. Tax cuts in the past three years have created a mish-mash of expiration dates, guaranteeing tax instability for years to come.

5. Lack of Financial Privacy.
The broad reach of the income tax leads to invasions of financial privacy. To enforce the income tax, the IRS accesses a myriad of personal information, such as mortgage records, credit card data, phone records, banking and investment accounts, data on property transactions, and personal correspondence. This broad IRS authority to obtain records without court supervision has been called "a power of inquisition" by the Supreme Court.

6. Denial of Due Process.
Many aspects of the income tax bypass the 5th Amendment right to due process. Due process requires that the government provide a clear notice of a claim against citizens and a hearing before enforcement is executed. But the IRS engages in many summary judgments, which are enforced prior to judicial determinations. Moreover, the complexity and ambiguity of the income tax violates the spirit of due process. The Supreme Court has noted that a statute that is "so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates that first essential of due process of law."

7. Shifting of the Burden of Proof.
For non-criminal tax cases, which are the vast majority of cases, the tax code reverses the common law principle of the burden of proof resting with the accuser. Except in some narrow cases, the IRS does not have to prove the correctness of its determinations. When the IRS makes erroneous assessments, as it often does, citizens have the burden to prove that the IRS is wrong. New rules to shift the burden of proof to the government in 1998 did not accomplish that goal and do not apply to most IRS actions, which are deemed administrative in nature.

8. No Trial by Jury in Tax Court.
The federal tax system sidesteps the 6th and 7th Amendment guarantees of trial by jury. To contest an IRS assessment, one can file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court. But because this is an administrative court, no jury trial is required. To obtain a jury trial and related rights for civil tax cases, one can file suit in a U.S. District Court. But the alleged tax, penalties, and interest must be paid in full beforehand, thus effectively eliminating a person's rights.

9. Unreasonable Search and Seizure.
The 4th Amendment guarantees that before the government searches private property and seizes records, it must show a court "probable cause" of lawless conduct. Sadly, the IRS has a history of abusive searches and seizures on individuals and businesses. Besides, the IRS summons authority allows it to obtain a huge range of taxpayer records without showing probable cause and without a court order. Indeed, there has been an explosion in IRS information reporting requirements, such as the agency's new authority to gain financial data related to Visa cards issued by foreign banks.

10. Forced Self-Incrimination.
The requirement to file tax returns under penalty of perjury counters the spirit of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Citizens are prosecuted for failure to file, but by disclosing all the information demanded by the IRS, taxpayers are waiving their 5th Amendment protections. Worse, tax return information does not stay with the IRS, it can be released to federal, state, and local agencies for non-tax purposes.

Replacing the income tax with a low-rate consumption tax would greatly reduce these problems. For example, the Dick Armey flat tax would exempt the returns to saving from tax at the individual level, which would simplify the tax code, create equal savings benefits for all families, and reduce the need for the IRS to probe personal financial records. Congress can champion economic growth and civil liberties at the same time by setting the goal of overhauling the tax code by next April 15.
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
I'll tell you what Aleph...

"Of course you would, Cabal... but was there ever any chance you would have voted for Kerry before the Repubs pulled this little stunt? Don't kid a kidder...

Same goes for most of the other people who are so excited about this... "


I'd gladly see Bush lose if a replacement of the tax code for a consumption tax were put in place as part of the deal. No way would the Dems take that bargain though.
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
NONSENSE!!!

"Well, there you go. Some states (Oregon comes to mind) have an egregious income tax level..."

What a bogus argument!!

First - those taxes will CONTINUE to remian in place NO MATTER WHAT the Feds do. Secondaly, at least some states will not overburden their citizenry, giving me the option of the freedom to escape the likes of Orgeon. You are making no sense with that argument Dennis. :eek:
 

White Sunlight

Senior Member
I voted for Bush last election and I will not vote for him this election. He is running on a record, he can propose this tax two-step today, he has a republican congress to back him.

When Reagan ran in 1984 he had a record and he won by a landslide because of that record. I would vote for Bush if he had a record that was worth voting for. I voted for him last time because he talked so much about education. Once elected all he could do for education is read goat stories.

White Sunlight
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
This ain't about voting for Bush

"I voted for Bush last election and I will not vote for him this election. He is running on a record, he can propose this tax two-step today, he has a republican congress to back him.

When Reagan ran in 1984 he had a record and he won by a landslide because of that record. I would vote for Bush if he had a record that was worth voting for. I voted for him last time because he talked so much about education. Once elected all he could do for education is read goat stories."


If Kerry voiced his support for the same thing he'd get my attention. It's about Congress, not the President. Obvioulsy, the President could veto it if it ever ended up on his desk. But the important thing is getting it to the President's desk in the first place! :sht:
 

Donner9x

Thread Killer :-)
bigwavedave said:
how will this grow the economy? what jobs do they have lined up for the tax accountants and IRS employees?

also keep in mind that the tax codes provide shelter to those who can afford to find it. it will be VERY difficult to take that away!

Man, you are like what happens to someones knee when it's whacked by a reflex-hammer!! :lol: Someone says "Bush Good!" and you can't stop yourself!!

:lol: :lol: Dude, are you this pathetic!?! :lol: Are you so damned bent on promoting the anti-Bush / Pro-liberal / Democrat agenda that you are actually defending the IRS!!??!

I think I know the answer: it's right in front of me. You guys are really that desperate!! And you have the gall to accuse me of being a blind right-wing appologist!!! :shk:

Don't get me wrong; I don't think this is gonna happen. But it's not what I would rest my vote on anyway. Although, if I thought it were a real possibility, it would certainly set my vote in stone... :)

But the amusing thing is, no matter what the Bush administration proposes or does, you, and all your fellow Bush-haters will find something wrong with it.

If that doesn't clue people in, I don't think people are capable of getting a clue.


If Bush launched a program to provide national health care for all U.S. citizens, you'd suddenly decide that it was somehow wrong.

If Bush decided that the war in Iraq was wrong, promised to have the troops home ASAP and to make up with the U.N. and give Chirac a big wet kiss, you'd say it was wrong.

This should be your slogan:
He's Bush, so he's gotta be wrong!
And:
He's on the right, he "really-really" believes in Jesus, so he's gotta be wrong!

And the left will do the most amazing mental gymnastics to convince people, no matter what.

Amazing...:lol:
<hr size=1>
"Middle Eastern males are protected, not by our Constitution, but from our current popular policy of political correctness and a desire to offend no one at any cost, regardless of how many airplanes and bodies litter the landscape."

:rdr: Donner9x: Official member of His Majesty Bush's imperialistic, super-duper secret, right-wing extremist, neo-con, Proud, crusading-Xtian, oil-grabbing, prisoner-"torturing" cabal... ( For the dense: /sarcasm off ) :rolleyes:

:usfl:
 

Donner9x

Thread Killer :-)
Dennis Olson said:
I don't consider it "mental gymnastics". I consider it "mental masturbation"....

JMHO - YMMV

:lol: It is that too...
<hr size=1>
"Middle Eastern males are protected, not by our Constitution, but from our current popular policy of political correctness and a desire to offend no one at any cost, regardless of how many airplanes and bodies litter the landscape."

:rdr: Donner9x: Official member of His Majesty Bush's imperialistic, super-duper secret, right-wing extremist, neo-con, Proud, crusading-Xtian, oil-grabbing, prisoner-"torturing" cabal... ( For the dense: /sarcasm off ) :rolleyes:

:usfl:
 

Army Girl

Inactive
If we did not have to pay matching tax (for payroll) every quarter, we could raise some salarys and hire a couple of new people with the savings of $hundreds of thousands$ each year. We wouldn't have to bother with the $tens of thousands$ spent for accounting either. And could do it without adding more clients. Amazing.

I'm all for criminals paying their fair share in tax.

The loopholers and special interests and exemptions being eliminated would be fair too.

A sales tax will probably cut down on illegals too. If not then at least they will be taxed something.

I'll vote for this.
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I barely understand the tax system we have now, but would someone charitably explain how a national sales tax/VAT would impact "underground" economies? Drug dealer A cuts a deal with buyer B---goods for cash, just like always. No tax involved in the transaction as far as I can see. I do see how both parties will be paying the tax when they purchase regular goods & services (new car, etc.), so is that what is meant by "taxing the underground economies"?
 

OnChaos

Inactive
Hurricanehic said:
Folks the important part is being missed.....for the first time the Underground economies, drugs, illegals, you name it would help pay their way.

Now tell me, just what makes you think that a drug pusher, or an illegal, or a flea market person is going to stop to collect a VAT or sales tax? :shkr:
 

Army Girl

Inactive
Criminals are not going to collect any taxes on their "goods". But they will be paying national tax when they shop. Now they pay no income tax and no national sales tax.

Underground and undertable folks will all pay tax when they shop retail. The underground economy will probably grow, perhaps IRS agents could work as spys on the underground. :rolleyes:
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
well...

Come on now folks - get with it!!!

A drug dealer, or a seller at a flea market for that matter, does not CURRENTLY declare this income on any federal tax forms (1040, etc.)! Duh!!! So the argument that the consumption tax will not touch that is pure obfuscation meant to confuse the issue.

At least they pay when they spend their 'profits', and that's the whole point. I imagine the economy will be at least as much underground after as it is now, but at least those who are complying now will not be as screwed as they are now - spending umpteen hours trying to figure out how they can both comply and figure out how to relieve themselves of as much taxation as they can.
 
With a national sales tax you pay your tax when you buy stuff. Right now, a criminal gets their money without paying taxes on it.

With the NST, no one pays taxes on their money when they GET it, it's when they spend it that they are taxed. So, criminals, waitresses, and payroll people will ALL be paying taxes when they spend it.
 

CanadaSue

Membership Revoked
Careful........

They might pass a national sales tax & state that they need to keep income around 'for a few years to put social decurity in the black'. What's the definition of 'a few years'?

Here, we have national income tax, provinvial income tax, an 8% national goods & services tax AND a 7% provincial sales tax. Some things were exempted - most fods bought at grocery stores, childrens' clothes, but you still get hosed. Lower income families get a quartly rebate on the sales tax but it doesn't go far.
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
Yes, agreed

CanadaSue,

No one should agree to a consumption tax without the same-time elimination of the income tax. You are right that Canadians are hosed, but that is due to the fact that Canada still has the income tax, and Canada has gone even further to a cradle-to-grave government bureaucracy than the US has.
 

gdpetti

Inactive
"I just made up my mind to vote Republican..."

Good for you...everything will just crash a little faster that way...might as well get it over with ...the sooner the better...police state here we come....who needs Patriot Act2 when it's easier to slide the policy in as amendment riders to all those defense bills.
No IRS...I'm sure the markets will "love" that...they "love" uncertainty don't they?
Now without payroll taxes, how mush will your bills go up? ...remember inflation? mostly in food and energy...which makes up most of the average person's bills....now if your rich...no IRS is a bonanza....'cause they don't spend all their income on bills.
 

l0kster

Inactive
steve forbes, cutting spending

I didn't vote for Forbes but I thought he had some good ideas on taxes.

we have needed tax reform for a long time, but we also need some major overhaul on the Spending side.

I forget what it was called, but there was an idea that the US "billpayers" would look over federal programs and then actually vote directly on what programs to actually fund instead of having some lobbyist controlled politician make deals to keep bloated government in place.

I don't mind paying my share of taxes, but I don't like it that some giant corporations and millionaires don't pay a dime and that I don't have much say where my tax dollars go.

Seems like smart minds could figure out how to simplify the Fed budget into maybe 20 or so big categories and voters could just rank them in priority from 1 to 20. Then each area would get whatever matching percentage of funds available. Or something similar.
 

bigwavedave

Deceased
Donner9x - "Man, you are like what happens to someones knee when it's whacked by a reflex-hammer!! Someone says "Bush Good!" and you can't stop yourself!!

Dude, are you this pathetic!?! Are you so damned bent on promoting the anti-Bush / Pro-liberal / Democrat agenda that you are actually defending the IRS!!??!"

interesting take. somewhere i apparently said that i support the IRS? hmm, i don't recall saying that.

time to take a refresher course for reading comprehension. or maybe it will be a new course for you? ;)

what i implied is that the "proposal" is highly unlikey to see daylight.

go here:

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=112041

Matt Drudge got conservatives' hopes up for nothing Monday when he ran a story that Speaker of the House Denny Hastert planned to "push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax." Unfortunately, Drudge based his story mostly on comments from the speaker's upcoming book, Speaker, rather than on real indicators that fundamental tax reform is on the way.
 
Top