Is Bush going to eliminate the IRS?

And bring in a VAT scheme? PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!
Can't wait for the sight of Democrats leaping to the defense of the hated IRS and the overly complicated tax code.

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...

Not being snooty, but what countries that have brought in VATs or GSTs have abolished their tax collection agency in the process?

Edited for spelling.

[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 by TheFuckOffKid]

I don't think that a national sales tax will go over too well in America, the land of consumerism. I'm all for a flat tax, provided that there is also a Guaranteed Income to offset the the income disparities that will increase when progressive taxation ceases. It'll be interesting to see how this is presented.

Motherfucker.

What a total dipstick.

Instead of "cut taxes and the economy will grow without bound" now it's "change the tax base, and the economy will grow without bound".

Who are these fuckwits and how the hell do they get to hold office in a supposedly grown up country?

Edited to say: that's a quote from stockula's post above, not from stockula himself.

[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 by TheFuckOffKid]

It's the progressive income tax scheme, which is what the Republicans are going after, I believe. But this is all the news I have heard about this. It's an incredible development if they are actually serious. And extremely daring, politically. It would basically entail a constitutional amendment, which was needed to instate an income tax in 1913.



[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 by stockula]

You need therapy.......or a hobby.

explain VAT, please.

In the sense that the proposed gay marriage constitutional amendment was daring, I suppose so.

Basically, these are consumption taxes, as opposed to taxes on income.

You pay as you spend, rather than as you earn.

And as opposed to conventional sales taxes, they are levied on EVERYTHING you buy, in principle.

And the opposite of progressive is...

Bueler?

Bueler?

How someone who claims to have a degree in economics, and is, by your own account, swimming rather in the shallow end of the income stream can applaud shifting the burden of public expenditures entirely to a consumer goods regressive tax system is utterly mind boggling. Every sixpack you buy is going to subsidize some rich dipshit's stock portfolio.

Sound to me, like maybe Drudge is trying to sell books. This topic will certainly move some copies, I'll wait until I see Dubya mention this. The flat tax is a terrible idea that won't go forward in America...unless of course people like Drudge, Limbaugh and Coulter get their way. Isn't weird that many people who hate Michael Moore LOVE those "political commentators".

I'm not sure of the specifics but isn't there a "flat tax" in Iraq...hmmm wonder who benefits from that?

[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

Not to be rude but the Drudge Report? Yeah fucking right.

take it light,

ph

Its a massive sales tax levied on consumer goods. Republicans like it beacause it allows them to shield the sources of their wealth from tax while passing the burden on to every consumer out there. In other words if your at the end of the income scale where you spend say 3/4 of your income on transient goods, 3/4 of the money that passes though your hands is taxed, whereas if you pay 1/10th of your income on the same and already have a house a car a big TV and are putting your income towards passive revenue generating investments, 9/10ths of your income is not taxed, freeing you to dedicate your active income to generating passive income which will likewise be taxed.

In short its an upward concentration of wealth scheme, that will hurt 9/10ths of Americans, and cripple our consumer driven economy, as most VAT schemes range from 15-25%, even in countries with nationwide property or income tax, neither of which seem to be being proposed here.

And the poor get poorer still.

That's true of every good I consume which they produce for my consumption. So you're saying they should be punished for providing goods and service I want and need?

Why am I entitled to their profits? I dont work for them or own any part of their business.

I am not rich. Is that their fault? I would much prefer to see the government arranged in a way that it makes it easier for my savings to accrue interest or any business ventures I make to have as little interference and red tape as possible. Ownership of business ventures is what creates wealth in America. And I am in favor of policies that make that as easy as possible.

*head explodes*

Taxes on producers are already passed onto consumers by way of raising prices, reprobate.

I guess this means it's time to buy a farm, and start brewing my own beer. I guess I should learn to sew too.

reprobate, I have to go AFK for a while, but good luck decoding that. I don't know what he means either.

Taxes aren't punishments, they are the cost of doing business. They are the levy that supports the system that allows enterprise to flourish. No taxes, no government. No government, no Wal Mart, capice?

Because theres no such thing as a free lunch. More importantly however, producers of consumer goods are taxed at the rate of something approaching sweet fuck all in this country. Corporate income tax is a joke. That money is inly taxed when interest in the company is sold by the stockholder and then its taxed at the capital gains rate which is roughly half that of active income.

Well, I cant account for your personal aptitude acumen or ambition, but in a neutral setting yes, it is in part their fault, because they reap the greatest benefits of the protections, entitlements, and benefits of the security of our society and by virtue of their power and influence displace a vastly disproportionate burden of paying for those protections and services on to you. Taxes are inevitable. They cannot be avoided. The only thing you can do is allocate them most equitably and efficiently. A VAT does absolutely neither.

What fucking savings do you thing you're going to have when your cost of living jumps 25% or more, across the board?

Where are you going to get capital with which to start a business venture? You don't have it, you aren't going to be able to accrue it and no one is going to lend it to you because you haven't an income stream to pay it back with?

Then perhaps you ought to go find one, since regressive tax systems are the living definition of barrier to entry. If you're already established and rich, they rock (at least until the fact that your customers cant afford your product trickles up). if you're not, you're never going to get there because you're too busy trying to survive.

Again, you have utterly no grasp of how our system of taxation works. You also seem fuzzy on supply and demand price points and profit margins, but that's another issue entirely.

Hey, Stock, way to branch out into the lunatic fringe cartoons, too.

You do grasp these guys are a couple of net kook objectivists, with a whopping one client, right?

Wal Mart needs the government to succeed? That's a laugh. If I started a business on my own, where the fuck is the government to help me or to catch me if my business fails? Nowhere.

But if my business succeeds? There they are with a gun behind their back, demanding their cut, OR ELSE.

Damn straight there is not thing as a free lunch. Which is why I ask why people who do not put effort, money, time, and risk into starting businesses or working should expect support from the people who do.


[Edited on Aug 01, 2004 by stockula]