Drudge: Republicans to abolish IRS

[cygy2k]

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...

[4_Legs_Good]

1. I'm going to hurl!

Not only is the mere thought of abolishing a progressive tax like the income tax insane, it's clearly a very obvious ploy at election year politics.

Oh well. We're doomed.

david

[lottie244]

112. Republicans will abolish SS, Medicare and the IRS. Tell the whole truth.

Glad I'll be dead in 50 years.

[leftyandproud]

2. oh fuck...

lots of greedy americans will like this idea...including dems

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cygy2k]

4. Implications...?

The implications are that the average joe will say hey abolishing the IRS sounds good, lets vote Bush. Implications are not necessarily good at this point if they move forward with the idea. Then again, there could be plenty of evidence to show that it wouldn't work and would be a terrible idea.

[mom cat]

39. Hi! and welcome to DU.. Looks like the repukes want to squeeze

the last drop of blood out of the poor.

[The Zanti Regent]

8. Get ready to VAT

You get to pay a 23% VAT on everything
Your Rent (23% rent increase)
Your Food
Your Shelter
Your Clothing
Your Prescriptions
Your Water
Your Gas

and everyone pays the same.

If you think the RICH are making a killing now, just wait...

[Eric J in MN]

5. The VAT is what stagnates the economies of Europe (nt)

nt

[phaseolus]

6. If they REALLY care about future generations...

They won't redistribute income upwards.
They won't set record deficits every year.
They won't start adventures that kill our sons and daughters, and put our little kids at risk when the inevitable blowback comes back to haunt us in a decade or two...

[jdj]

60. They don't really care about future generations.

Jesus is a comin' back,remember?

[Dover]

82. Future? According to Bush it really doesn't matter. We'll all be dead.

Why worry about the future?

[gatlingforme]

103. LOL that is funny. God talks to him you know. LOL

[lancdem]

7. What an idiotic, regressive idea

and pure pandering, plain and simple.

[Baltimoreboy]

Eliminating the IRS would save money

But you are right that this is regressive.

[lostnfound]

113. Not if they included STOCK sales in the sales tax... :-)

Of course they never would. But just imagine it. No more Enrons, that's for sure. Just very-long-term investing.

[Doosh]

9. so basically they plan on eliminating thousands of jobs???

.

[fudge stripe cookays]

24. That was going to be my comment.

I used to work at the IRS-- for most of the 90s.

Most of the people that I worked with were decent, hardworking people who needed their jobs. Many were single mothers.

Yeah...this is a fucking BRILLIANT idea. Let's put more people out of work.

[girl gone mad]

51. Not only the IRS..

but the article also mentions no more need for accountants, tax preparers, financial advisors. A lot of people would be out of work.

[Baltimoreboy]

88. By that standard, we'd never automate anything either

Simplifying taxes is a great idea. Doing it this way is incredibly stupid.

[salin]

108. I remember the last time they "simplified taxes"

back in 1986. I stood in the senate office building where the hearings were being held. There were so many lobbyists there, that the hearing room was full and the audio was being piped into a packed auditorium (packed with more lobbyists). Just stood and watched lobbyists grab lawmakers from the room, and endless stream of deal making. Funny thing - they claimed that the reform "simplified" taxes... but I don't recall anyone who found their taxes to be simpler. ANd there were TONS of loopholes - the very thing they claimed to have closed. That was a republican Senate with a Republican Administration. I wouldn't fall for their lures of "Tax Simplification" - this way or any other way. This administration is FAR more greedy and on the take than the last time I witnessed "tax simplification".

[UpInArms]

10. the people on the bottom of the financial

ladder will suffer the most from this as more of their disposable income is spent and taxed at a higher rate (unless this VAT is 2% or less) and the people with lots of money will pay even less on a percentage plan than what they pay now - as they have more money available to spend and will not spend more than they do now - therefore amassing even more wealth at the expense of the other 98% of the citizens of this country.

What would we expect but yet another bad idea from this maladministration?

[struggle4progress]

11. The Bushistas want corporate rule. You won't get to vote ...

on your corporate masters. Bushistas will bankrupt federal government, and corporations will have a free hand.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UpInArms]

49. when in the world did a "corporation" become a human

being?

These machines bear no responsibility,and have only one mandate: create profit for shareholders. They cannot be imprisoned for criminal behaviors, cannot be held accountable for misdeeds, yet you would presume that the only think that an immortal machine should be allowed to vote?

Please explain your reasoning a little more clearly.

[reprobate]

75. Corporations were given "personhood" in 1886.

In the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad corporations were given equality with human beings, the biggest coup that the corporations were ever responsible for. This is responsible for every evil perpetrated by them ever since.

Interestingly, from what I have read, it was never decided by the court, but was written by the clerk of the USSC, who by the way, had worked for Southern Pacific.

If you are not angry enough, read "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartman.

A good article on it is here http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1226-04.htm

[Beausoleil]

132. And they don't die, either

n/t

[Th1onein]

Corporations DON'T pay taxes! Often they RECEIVE refunds!

Just don't get it, do you?

[drscm]

64. Hell! Why don't we just give the vote to the landed gentry based

on their net worth and forget everybody else.

[mbperrin]

79. Actually most pay none or nearly none!

Check this out!

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp

Most companies paid no taxes during the boom

With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.

By MSN Money staff and news services

Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.

In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes.

And it wasn’t just American companies avoiding a bill. About 70% of foreign-owned companies doing business in the United States paid no federal tax in the late 1990s, the GAO said. The GAO report covered 2.1 million returns by U.S. companies and 69,000 foreign-owned companies.<more>

So if you paid anything last year, even a dollar, you paid more than most corporations! Congratulations!

[aquart]

90. Voting is based on citizenship, not taxation.

Is a corporation a citizen? Think ever so carefully before you answer.

[brainshrub]

12. I like the idea of a flat-tax.

Go ahead and flame me. I'm used to it.

[qanda]

14. No flame here, just a question

How will a flat tax effectively end the need for the IRS? Honestly, would any of the ideas they're talking about end the IRS or is it just an effective message to draw in the sheep?

[Pab Sungenis]

22. Sales tax system could work!

I would gladly push for a nationwide sales tax, preferably a VAT, with certain exemptions:

(1) Exempt staple (non-prepared) food
(2) Exempt clothing
(3) Exempt gasoline
(4) Exempt the first $10,000.00 on vehicle purchases
(5) Exempt purchases of homes for primary residence
(6) Exempt newspapers/periodicals

This would actually result in a very fair tax system. Those who consume the most would pay the most. And (since it's mainly luxuries that would be taxed under my plan) those who would consume the most would mainly be those who make the most.

We would get rid of a lot of unnecessary bureaucratic expense from the IRS's dismantling. Just use the sales tax collection system already in place in the overwhelming majority of states and kick back a percentage to help the states cover their added costs.

Think about it. It could work.

[oneighty]

31. Must tax essentials

or the plan will fail.

180

[Toronto Ron]

33. I partially agree

A flat tax system could be fair as long as exemptions are made to ensure the poor aren't screwed. I agree with items (1) and (2) in your list, although expensive articles of clothing (>$100 ?) ought to be taxed. I strongly disagreee with (3) & (4). Driving gas-guzzling vehicles ought to be costly; let's finally encourage mass transit and clean/efficient energy in this country. (5) is generally sensible, but again, maybe there should be a cap (e.g., the median home price in the area). (6) is unnecessary and minor.

I can't believe we're even discussing it; it'll never happen!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

73. It's all or nothing..

Who decides "which" clothing gets exempted?? Walmart/Target exempted ?that's "unfair" to the Dolce-Gabana $10K tank top buyers:)

Exempt macaroni AND caviar???

Flat taxes rip off poor people...plain and simple..

If you make under 25K a year, you are pretty much spendiing EVERY DIME you make...just to exist.. so a flat tax hits you at 100%..


If you make 500K a year, unless you are eating and wearing the actual cash, you are "spending" a small fraction of what you "take home"..

Remember too, that "rich folks" are a "network" unto themselves..they often "trade" with each other..Does anyone really believe that in a situation where the ritzy dentist will collect taxes on the mouthful or ceramic dental work that he "quietly" swaps his Mazerati dealer pal, for the "trade"??

The "average joe", will take it in the shorts.. Sure it will "seem" like he's getting more money if that fed tax box says 0...but look for the states to raise taxes to compensate..

It sucks all around, and until the public can be "re-educated" (that will take a generation), people will still attach themselves to that Libertarian nonsense that the rightwing radio guys have "taught" them since the late 70's..

Life is NOT free...and things that we all need, cost SOMEBODY..

[salin]

109. by the time you exempt all YOUR favorite things

and all the GOP favorite things... the rate of taxation on the items left will be horrendous.

It would be the final push for creating a banana republic style of income disparity permanent in this country. Don't know when a country which has had much more equal levels of income distribution has taken so many strides backwards... but the GOP seems intent on doing this. Sadly they have sold the koolaid of antitaxes that they package things like that that would have HUGE detrimental effects - esp on those of limited income... and people eat it up

[brainshrub]

46. It wouldn't.

It wouldn't eliminate the IRS, but it would make the whole process easier.

It isn't that the IRS is evil, it's just that the tax structure is designed to give the rich every possible break.

Would the rich benefit from a flat-tax? Probably a little; but the current system fleeces the middle class much more than a flat-tax would.

[3 Cents and Change]

91. ummm, close.

"It isn't that the IRS is evil, it's just that the tax structure is designed to give the rich every possible break."

Except for that pesky little thing called the 36% tax bracket and our entire tax structure that creates a system where the top two percent carry MUCH MUCH more than their own weight.

[loudsue]

130. The top 2% SHOULD carry MUCH MUCH more than their own weight

The top 2% only pay 20% of their profits on the cost of the labor that makes them the top 2%.....

What do you have against the people who ACTUALLY DO THE WORK getting more of their share of what they produce??

:kick::kick::kick:

[3 Cents and Change]

131. THEY ALREADY DO

Are you completely ignoring the fact that the top tax bracket is around 35% while the tax bracket for average guy is around 10%?

BTW, your idea that the top 2 percent only pays 20% if pure rubish. You're talking about corporate tax rates.

[w4rma]

156. Prove that. (nt)

[sadiesworld]

106. If the rich will benefit from a flat tax...

and the middle-class will benefit from a flat tax, doesn't that mean there will be less revenues? How do we fund government? On the backs of the poor?

[salin]

155. We increase the rates on all levels

many proponents of flat taxes seem to greatly deflate the size of that flat tax that would be needed to fund government without bushsize deficits.

[rooboy]

26. A goods and services tax is not a 'flat tax'...

'Flat tax' refers to income tax, this is a consumption tax.

[sampsonblk]

56. Its worht discussing, at least

Its an idea that can be good if done well. We should have pulled this one, and taken the tax cut issue away from them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

68. Tax Simplification is What is needed, Flat Tax is Regressive.

A flat tax is regressive and hits the poor hardest and the rich the least. However, the tax code as it exists is very regressive and very inefficient because of its complexity. Rich people and corporations can take advantage of all the loopholes hidden in that complexity.

Corporate subsidies are hidden in the tax code as deductions. That way there is no public accounting. The honest way to do it is that if a coal company is worthy of being subsidized by the taxpayers, it should get a grant which shows up as a budget item. Hiding it as a deduction is underhanded, deceitful, and very convenient for corporations.

Tax simplification means drastically reducing the variety of deductions. A progressive tax rate can still be very simple but not flat. It can be handled with a table of values. No sweat.

The cost of tax preparers, tax accountants, tax examiners, tax auditors, and tax lawyers is a non-productive drain on the economy. Sure there will be dislocation in the short run. But spinning wheels shuffling paper is not competitive and is not something to hang around the necks of succeeding generations.

Simplify the tax code.

[3 Cents and Change]

92. This is what I'm tired of...

"Rich people and corporations can take advantage of all the loopholes hidden in that complexity."

Even with those loopholes the top two percent still pays MUCH MUCH more than the bottom ten to twenty percent which pays almost nothing and with EIC most of them get something back instead of paying in.

Corporations don't pay taxes and they never will. When you tax a corporation you're not taking money away from fat cats, your jacking up the prices those fat cats will charge so they can still earn what they did before.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

100. Corporate Welfare in the Tax Code is the Biggest Loophole

When stuff like "coal companies in the fifth most populous state" is written into tax law, it is hidden corporate welfare that would not stand the light of day if it were a budget line item subsidy. Either way, taxpayers pay the corporate welfare. (Not actual example, but that is how it is done).

Yes, every one pays too much tax, and the ancilliary costs of accountants, lawyers, examiners, and auditors are not-so-hidden taxes too. Simplify the tax code for national efficiency and retrain the accountants as software quality assurance testers, a much better use of detail-oriented people.

[salin]

110. When the Reagans capped social security

it used to be that all income had a social security tax. The Reagans capped the income that could be taxed and RAISED the rate at all levels (that was a lot of income suddenly not being taxed.) Because ALL income up to that point (now about 85,000) gets taxed - the steep income hit those earning few dollars the most steeply - thus the EIC was adjusted to ensure that those working but who are on the edge of poverty didn't fall into poverty because of the changes in social security which were a benefit to the wealthiest.

So the EIC was the unfair thing? THe poor folks are the problem?

Short memory, lack of understanding the EIC, and a heck of a lot of energy on the right vilifying it out of context - leaves us in a position where we keep screwing those at the bottom of the income distribution and then vilifying them by cutting essential services because we, as a society, somehow decide that people are poor and stay poor due to some character flaw, rather than recognizing that we help set up the system to work that way.

[3 Cents and Change]

123. Never said it.

"So the EIC was the unfair thing? THe poor folks are the problem? "

I NEVER SAID THAT BUT THANKS FOR THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

What I'm saying is the claim that the rich don't pay their fair share is bull shit.

[midnight armadillo]

118. Oh give me a break

Even with those loopholes the top two percent still pays MUCH MUCH more than the bottom ten to twenty percent which pays almost nothing and with EIC most of them get something back instead of paying in.

So? The top two percent gets more income than the bottom 10-20% and has vastly more wealth. They shoud pay more!

[3 Cents and Change]

122. No duh.

"They shoud pay more!"

No shit. They do. I'm tired of the claims that the tax system is setup for them when they pay in the 35 to 40 percent range while the poor don't pay anything.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying the rich are already pulling much more than their own weight.

[shraby]

126. The poor don't make enough

to pay anything specially if they have children.

[3 Cents and Change]

127. Agreed.

And they don't pay anything under the current tax plan. In fact with EIC most get more back than they put in through income taxes.

[On the Road]

117. Flat Taxes are Just as Complicated as a Progressive Tax

The complications aren't in looking up an amount in the tax table, they're in calculation what a person's taxable income is. This is a lot more than adding up W-2s. The IRS is needed just as much under a flat-tax system.

[milkyway]

13. How the fuck does getting rid of tax preparers double the economy over

15 years? What does tax preparation expenses cost the u.s.? Probably less than 1/10th of one percent of GDP. These bastards have absolutely no sense of human decency.

[warrior1]

15. loony news

that ain't ever gonna happen.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daa]

16. This is just another scam to screw

old folks. Seniors are losing their pensions and healthcare and now this is the repuke effort to strip them of their savings. Seniors that have forgone consumption in favor a savings for later on were taxed when they earned the income and now the repukes will tax it when they finally spend it to enjoy their golden years.

If I saved to take a cruise in retirement now I can add on the 23% tax after I already paid income tax when I made the money. shameful FRAUD., Fuck Bush and take back OUR country.

[kysrsoze]

38. That's a HUGE point you made - only benefits the rich

[jwin95]

48. ...and taxes the 'wealth' made 'under the table' when drug money is spent

- like the HUGE traffic in marijuana and other drugs!

[tkmorris]

58. Don't you think......

that people who sell things under the table can BUY things off the radar as well?

[Fleshdancer]

17. Would we be able to support our military on such a plan?

And first time responders? What about paying down our debt? Jeez, how much would a gallon of milk cost?

[MikeG]

18. DONT WORRY! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WILL OPPOSE IT!

No charitable deduction.
No mortgage interest deduction.

[YEM]

19. Maybe this will make people realize Bush is insane?

It should be quite obvious at this point, but too many people are idiots.

[mom cat]

43. and no deduction for children.

[enki23]

20. does anybody take this moron seriously anymore?

it's like reading the weekly world news. just print any old shit that comes along, no matter the source, no matter the veracity. if you like it, print it, and delete it later after it's done its work.

what a fucking hole.

[trogdor]

63. Let me say this one more time...

STOP LINKING DRUDGE'S STUPID SHIT!

[DemoTex]

21. Screw all your shit-house theories ...

The Bu$h regime will shift all of the tax burden to the middle class and the poor. Corporations and the ultra-rich will get bigger cuts.

How do I know? Bwaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaaa! Are you fucking stupid? Really. Give me a break. You are killing me!

[rooboy]

23. This WILL NOT get rid of the IRS and it is good for tax agents.

Take it from me. We have a 10% GST in Australia and it is a NIGHTMARE for small businesses. We have had to spend more on accountancy services because we have all become de-facto tax collectors for the government. But who watches over us? The taxation commissioner (read IRS).

As many of you have noted, prices of most goods will go up, and some prices will go down. The bad news is that essentials such as food and school books get more expensive and it chokes the shit out of your household budget.

And I have not noticed a significant change in the income tax rates - they DID NOT just 'go away' due to the GST/VAT. And finally, look at the UK. Their VAT started at 10%, now I think it's up somewhere near 17.5%. And there still aren't enough beds in the hospitals.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fleshdancer]

30. and how would this cut offshoring of jobs?

do tell

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcuno]

35. You're a hoot.

As if that's the problem with outsourcing. We're now thinking of using the Europeans as our model? What garbage. As if I deserve to inherit millions with no tax ramifications.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fleshdancer]

85. actually, admin support is neccessary for all companies. eom

[struggle4progress]

86. Not a big fan of record keeping? Dislike accountants?

Don't mind when millions of your tax dollars are spent without a paper trail?

[natrat]

87. yea paper pushers

need to be educated and you know how we feel about that down here dontya

[Fleshdancer]

84. if they're non-productive and not neccessary, then why move overseas?

why not just fire the employees you don't need?

Let's be honest about outsourcing. Large corporations do this because they can pay half, sometimes less than minimum wage per worker overseas, they don't have to provide any benefits and they won't have any fear of their employees forming a union to negotiate the fact they are earning shit for money with no benefits.

Getting rid of the IRS isn't going to get rid of our minimum wages and unions and it's a real possibility that outsourcing would still be better for the bottom line regardless of what the US does with its tax policy.

[meti57b]

28. That would kill businesses for certain. People would cut their spending to

a minimum.

[rfkrocks]

29. The GOP putting the vodoo back in economics! (n/t)

[MattNC]

36. if they got rid of it

they wouldn't be able to use it to threaten people anymore.

[truthisfreedom]

37. yawn. wake me up when the revolution is over. this isn't a partisan idea.

it's just an idea. who cares if the rethugs are throwing it out there now? it's an idea that's been around for years.

[Elginoid]

42. ain't gonna happen- just an election-time stunt.

once the actual numbers got tossed around, the average joes will RUN away from the idea, because it's a VERY BAD idea.

[gmoney]

44. If it comes with socialized medicine and free university tuition...

...maybe i could get behind this.

In civilized countries where they have high taxes, at least you get good value for it, like "free" health care, free university, old age pensions, social safety net, good schools, and all the rest.

But surely what Bush has in mind is just plain old facism... collect VAT tax, give it all to corporations, and it's every citizen for himself.

This fucker is going to set America back 150 years.

[Mel]

45. Once the poor people

realize what little they have to lose it will be on and the rich better build bigger gates.
Don't expect me to take it as a poor person it's not going to happen! I'm sick of this class warfare on me let em' go ahead and try stupid republicans.
Republicans are to damn lazy to fix the tax code mess why don't they do their damn jobs?! I'm firing some people come Nov. you can bet on that!

If this type of tax system is set up I'm sorry people but as a poor person I will be forced to do what it takes to survive. So be it!
Arrrrgh Matey! I'll be channeling Annie Bonney and I won't be starving under a bridge you can be sure of that. People you get what you pay for and if you don't want a civilized country and you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes then don't expect me to abide by the rule of law. I'm tired of seeing the likes of Kenny Boys and that's bad enough so if Republicans want to go further on down this destructive path they are in for a rude awakening. I can hear them now crying for liberals to help them if all their stupid little ideas get through and they start reaping what they are trying to sow.

[earthside]

47. Oh, Please Let this Be True.

Eliminate the IRS, uh?

Have any of you ever had to deal with your local and state sales tax collection agencies? More red tape than the IRS and it will be twice as large. I cannot wait for the horror stories from small retailers about their hassles from existing sales tax collectors.

Then, of course, is the flat out truth that a VAT or national sales tax will further squeeze the middle class. The elite will quickly find ways to shelter their purchases from taxation ... they will become 'employees' of exempted not-for-profit corporations and foundations.

And though people love to hate the IRS, to propose its elimination and the death of the progressive income tax will signal to voters loudly and clearly just how extreme and radical are Bush and the Republicans.

What a political gift this would be to liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc. Explain to me how snobs like Dick Cheney would ever even notice that they were paying sales tax on their .... well, what do you think Cheney EVER buys himself? Do you think Bill Gates will ever noticed that he had to pay and extra 10 percent on that box of Q-Tips he picked up at Walgreens? See how ridiculous this concept is? But I'll bet Gates can tell you how much income tax he paid last year ... even if it wasn't very much because of tax shelters.

The progressive income tax - for all its problems - is about fairness; about everybody paying their FAIR share. A VAT or national sales tax is regressive and about resdistributing wealth once again from the poor and middle class to the top.

If they take this route it is a sign of real fear and desperation.

Like I say, I hope this is true ... It will mean a landslide victory fo Kerry/Edwards.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmowreader]

50. The only way to abolish an IRS is to abolish taxation

Besides the fact that all of those progressive European countries that rely on VAT also have an income tax (and the rates are higher than ours), there has to be some way to receive, account for and disburse tax revenues. No matter the source.

Which means that you're stuck with the need for an internal-revenue service.

Okay, if you're dealing with a consumption tax you're free from the need for auditors and tax-return processors, but you still need someone to receive the tax revenue and to send it on to the general fund.

Besides, when after six months of no income taxation the government collapses, there's going to be a really evil IRS implemented to get us back on our feet.

[nonkultur]

52. Tax reform is not bad but VAT?

I could go for a "flat tax" with no "loopholes."
I do not know about a national sales tax. It could work if groceries are exempt like sales tax in Florida (I do not know sales tax elsewhere.)

VAT tax looks confusing and corporations would cook the books like they always do.

[Zidane]

54. If it happens it is the partys fault

There should be a simple exemption from income tax if you make below a certain wage. The way we have it now people making minimum wage are being taxed. The party hasn't done anything about this, and hasn't made it a serious agenda for a VERY long time.

Unfortunately the tax breaks seem to come to the rich and not the poor. There are two options IMO

1. Either fucking stop giving tax breaks to the rich instead of the poor

or

2. Get rid of the damn thing.

I hope to god option 1 occurs, but if it's going to continue to be used to screw over the poor then I won't complain if it is abolished.

[johnnie]

55. It's fucking sludge

When National Inquirer reports this, I'll believe it more.

[intermixxx]

57. If you're interested

Before you talk out of your ass, here is the source on the flat tax - http://www.fairtax.org

As these guys present it, it ain't a bad setup. It would actually get us closer to national healthcare because everyone (including undocumented, tax evaders) would contribute. The revenue for the government is much greater with the plan these folks present.

[napi21]

59. Don't worry. It won't happen!

Do you know how many accountants and tax attorneys there are in this Country? They'd all be unemployed!

I think Drudge is funnin with ya.

[Caution]

61. funny how libertarians come out of the woodwork on this idea

What a friggin horrendous idea this is. The real fact is that they plan on running on this platform but they would never be able to push it through.

[minkyboodle]

69. Ding Ding Ding

I think Ayn Rand is ringing the dinner bell or something :)

[intermixxx]

62. Wasn't this a Forbes thing?

Didn't Steven Forbes run on this? Didn't he lose bad? Maybe the big surprise is that Bush finds the presidency a bit to tough, and figures Forbes lost with it so he might too???

[AlFrankenFan]

65. Now that's .... holy shit

Eliminating the IRS? Hmmmm...I can think of at least three things wrong with that - one, millions of jobs will be lost, two, they really don't wanna, they just think it'll make them a shoe-in with the average Joe, and three, I already pay too much for a Starbucks coffee.

[Stephanie]

66. Just another way to transfer wealth to the rich

Poor people spend all their income, so they would be paying tax on their entire income.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

98. good point. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

102. You've explained the problem perfectly.

I've been groping for words to explain how wrong it is for a poor person to pay exactly the same for a common necessity as a wealthy American, but you were already ahead of that.

Their money would not go as far as it did. This would be tragic.

Thanks for getting that thought down.

[gristy]

67. OMG

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

[Jacobin]

70. GOP to Also Outlaw Death and Disease

Poof, all things they don't like can now disappear. See, they can walk on water, too!!!

[Triana]

71. Republicans have been planning to abolish the IRS

...and Public Education, and Social Security, and Medicare for YEARS!

Now that they have control of the government lock, stock, and barrel, this is their chance. They control the Senate, House, Oval Office, Supreme Court, Dept. of Justice, and most Federal Courts and Governorships.

They think the government shouldn't provide *any* services to the public except defense/military - that's IT. The rest (according to them) isn't the government's responsibility.

WAR - is their only job and the only responsiblity they think the US gov't should have - period.

They've planned to do away with everything else for decades.

[renegade000]

72. i doubt this is true...i mean it's matt drudge

but if it is...:wtf:

[amandabeech]

74. Those who spend every penney of their income to survive

will pay taxes on every penney of their income.

Those who make more than they spend, will only pay taxes on what income they spend.

This is unbelievably regressive.

I think that Bush* is going to go all out with an extreme right-wing economic/domestic agenda at the convention.

It would be dramatic and would detract from the war and the terror events.

Me, I don't think that I'll have any retirement under their economic plan. That is unless * gets us all nuke first.

[johnfunk]

76. DRUDGE: SID BLUMENTHAL BEAT BILL CLINTON's LOVE CHILD...

... folks, it's Drudge, the most unreliable "news" source on the 'Net.

Looks to me like Racicot and Rove are just putting out feelers...

[Francine Frensky]

77. Not getting rid of IRS, getting rid of US TAX CODE. More:

This has been part of Grover Norquist's "shrink the gov down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub" plan all along.

The fako wording here, meant to appeal to 90% of americans who think the IRS is the bad guy, is that they are ONLY getting rid of this agency. But what they really want is a flat tax so they can screw the poor (who can't afford a 20% sales tax) and the old people (who have already paid their taxes, and are supposed to be living pretty-much tax free at this point), and homeowners (no more interest deduction means homeownership is no longer better than renting and housing prices will DROP 30%), and charities (no tax deduction-incentive for contributions, plus now they lose tax-exempt status and would have to compete more with regular businesses), plus you put a whole industry of people out of work (tax accountants).

The only winners here, folks, are the rich who will see a dramatic drop in their taxes on things like daddy's trust fund, and hey, they can always fly to another country to spend, tax free, if they like.

Joe six-pack will squeal like a pig when he hears the IRS will be eliminated, but after a couple years of a totally screwed-up economy (remember, these are the same people who thought Iraq was such a sure-thing winner idea), I bet he won't be a happy camper.

[johnfunk]

78. What KERRY should announce:

1) Abolition of the IRS
2) Transfer of most of its infrastructure from Treasury to Justice, where it would become the Bureau of Revenue Audit, with some Treasury personnel retained to process incoming tax forms and returns
3) Main mission of the BRE: to make sure that corporate citizens are paying their fair share of taxes
4) Secondary mission: to make sure that private citizens in the upper tac bracket are paying their fair share
5) Tertiary mission: random all-expense paid audits of a small sampling of all other returns -- with the goal of making the tax process easirer by finding common problems

Kerry's pitch:

-- "It's about the rule of law... It's about making sure that our richest corporate citizens pay their fair share of taxes and carry their fair share of the weight to keep our nation strong and secure."
-- Transition can be done with the head count lowered by about 25% through attrition, not firings
-- "This President wants to foist a costly boondoggle on America -- a risky tax scheme that will inflate the price of everything, not just consumer goods, but cars, houses, education, even your food -- and drive working families deeper into debt and poverty."
-- "The IRS has for too long put the focus on individual filers while ignoring the machinations of big business and their CFOs' number games. Corporate scandals have cost our government billions in tax revenues. As President, I will put a stop to the cheating, the exploitation of loopholes, with a Bureau of Audit combining the best bean counters in the Treasury backed and bolstered by the Department of Justice to fight and close them, one by one by one."

[number6]

80. good ! I won't pay any taxes, nobody to collect em .....

I'll live in a cave with patriot survivalists

no tax money for wars, the bu$h police state, the military
industrial complex, faith based initiative, pay for repooplican
congressmen, government handouts for haliburton .....

ya ,...dream on ....:evilgrin: any body take this shit seriously

[johnfunk]

81. Oh, there'd be someone to collect 'em...

... but not the IRS. You don't file? You hear from Justice.

Fun fact: more Republicans fail to file than Democrats. Now doesn't the Revenue Audit Bureau sound like a sweet way to deal with cheatin' 'Pubbies??

[number6]

83. more Republicans fail to file than Democrats

oh no! not those moral repooplicans :evilgrin:

[aquart]

89. Denny is for regressive taxation! Like FORBES!

And the voters just LoooooooooVED Forbes.

Please tell me the dear boy is not running unopposed.

[3 Cents and Change]

93. Coporations DON'T PAY TAXES AND NEVER WILL

Whey do people keep pointing out corporate tax loop holes?

Coporations don't pay taxes and they never will. They include the cost of the tax in their prices that are passed on to consumers. You don't take money from corporate fat cats when you increase or make corporate taxes tougher, you indirectly increase the cost of living for consumers. The fat cats will still make their money, they'll just get more from the consumer while sending more to the government.

[JDPriestly]

94. A mix of income tax and VAT might not be so bad

provided necessities are not subject to VAT -- like food, medicine, school supplies, children's clothing . . . . A VAT could even the playing field a bit between products that are manufactured here and abroad.

But, the US will never be able to do away with income tax entirely because black markets thrive in countries with VATs. It would be especially easy for crooks to sell cheap imports without paying taxes. There is already quite a black market for cheap takeoffs of expensive brands. Because of that, a VAT alone probably would not generate enough revenue.

[thomas82]

96. This is bad

For this to work they will have to track my every purchase right? to do this everyone would need a national ID number right? Holy mark of the Beast batman!!! It would be simple at first you have a national purchase card and then they put chips in all of us (666 etc). This is BS they will never do this..I hope.
Tom

[jus_the_facts]

95. Corporations receive WELFARE from the gov't.....

....they in fact take billions more from the taxpayers than any social programs ever have or will.....

:nopity:

[3 Cents and Change]

125. Agreed.

Much of that welfare is in the form of incentives for job creation or subsidies for strugling industries but I don't agree with subsidies in any form.

However, just remember when the corporate welfare ends, they're going to get their money from somewhere else, and guess where that comes from? Higher prices.

[flaminbats]

105. How is this possible? It seems so simple!

So based on your analysis, if I don't like paying Federal Income Taxes all I need to do is charge higher prices...then raise my income, and then...hmmm...pay more in income taxes:eyes:

[3 Cents and Change]

124. You have no clue...

...where corporations get the money they are taxed for from do you?

[flaminbats]

136. thanks, but I can represent myself...

and you can best represent yourself. I feel that your feeble attempt to misrepresent my experience in accounting is nothing short of an insult.

The point is that some businesses make profits and some do not, some businesses pay taxes and others do not. With the income tax those who make money pay taxes, while those having a bad year don't. With a VAT everyone must carry the burden...those making money, those who are unemployed, those who barely break even, and those going into debt just to pay for basic necessities. Naturally this is why big business supports it! But the sick reality of the VAT is that more will suffer because of this..but the result will be less revenue, less personal savings, and widespread stagflation..the likes of which would make the 70's seem like heaven!

[3 Cents and Change]

139. I don't like VAT either...

and I never said I do. My point is that the idea that corporations should pay more taxes is bunk because all that does is increase the cost of goods to consumers.

[flaminbats]

142. again, I have problems with this hypothesis..

It would be similar to suggesting..if I want to reduce my tax burden, then all I must do is pass this cost onto my employers by increasing my quarterly earnings!

Unfortunately more income and higher taxes are two things which go together in progressive nations. That enables people at the bottom to have the burden of smaller debts, and ultimately begin saving a small percentage of their earnings every year.

In a perfect world we would need no government, no taxes, no laws, no military, no courts, no Social Security, and no public education. People would be nice to one another, help one another, and teach one another without the dangers of anarchy or terrorism.

[3 Cents and Change]

143. And that's the way it is.

"Unfortunately more income and higher taxes are two things which go together in progressive nations."

And that's the way it is here? No? The poor pay a much smaller portion of their income than the rich do and a very large portion of the poor don't pay any taxes at all.

I think we are talking about two completely different things. You seem to be speaking of a progressive tax (tax bracket system), which we already have. I'm speaking of increasing the taxes on corporations which seems to be a popular idea around here.

If you increase the taxes (costs) on corporations by a certain percentage what kind of impact do you think that will have? They will either...

A. Pay their management less.
B. Pay out less in dividends which are a large part of many responsible retirement plans
C. Pay their employees less.
D. Charge their customers more.
E. Layoff employees to cut costs.

I'll tell you right now that B, C, D, and E are one hell of a lot more likely than A. I really don't see where the benefit is.

[flaminbats]

148. America is somewhere between progressive and backwards--

The collective sales tax in America is higher than in most European nations, with the possible exception of Russia.. So is the national debt, the infant mortality rate, and military spending.

If people at the bottom are paying more in taxes in America..it is because of higher state sales taxes, Bush's tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy, and more unfunded mandates like Every Child Left Behind.

You argue that raising taxes on corporations will do so many terrible things, but most people at DU just want to repeal the Bush tax-cuts! Corporations, individuals, and government all did great during the 90's, and there are few times of which this can be said.

Government should focus more on increasing the supply and access of healthcare, paying down the deficit, and targeting bin Laden. It should focus less on VATs, wars without exit strategies, and crying wolf for no apparent reason.

[3 Cents and Change]

151. Maybe you aren't arguing with me?

Because I have no clue where you are coming from now. I stated that corporations don't pay taxes, they don't. Taxes paid by corporations are just passed on to consumers and investors in the form of higher prices for products and lower returns on investments.

If you want to go into a tangent on healthcare, the deficit, OBL, etc. your barking up the wrong tree. I agree with you.

[flaminbats]

154. at least we can agree on something..

My only point is this, if a corporation makes a profit...it will pay taxes on that profit. If a corporation makes a loss, it will not pay taxes on the loss, in fact it may receive a refund if it expected a profit!

Prices have little to do with taxes, other than determining how much profit will be made on the good or service being sold. If the price is low, more will be purchased and if it is higher less will be purchased. But if the price is increased merely to pay the taxes, then either less goods will be sold or more profit will be taxed. Either way taxes are paid by the profits earned by the corporation, not by those who purchase the goods and services. That would be like saying that your employer pays your taxes and personal living expenses, and that you had not earned this money or paid the tax based on your income..

But please,, enough with the dancing angels on pin tops!!

[3 Cents and Change]

144. BTW,

If you don't think that increasing corporate taxes would increase prices of the goods produced by corporations, where exactly do you think the money paid in taxes is going to come from? Corporations don't just magically create money, they either cut costs or increase revenue.

[flaminbats]

145. this is sooo easy...

I hope you are familiar with the concept of quarterly reports...they help us determine whether the company has made a profit during the last three months, or a loss. As far as I can tell, businesses have not created a system of pre-quarterly reports..or at least one that works! But there is always speculation....

Companies can always speculate on what next quarter's profits will be, and then report this income ahead of time to the IRS so your suggested price adjustments could be made! But what happens if a profit is reported for the quarter, prices are raised more...but then we lose money for the quarter?

It has been tried before, but like Las Vegas...you better be ready to lose some money, because no intelligent entrepreneur works this way!

[3 Cents and Change]

146. So you are claiming tax doesn't impact price at all?

Do you really think we can tax corporations whatever we want and that will have no effect on the prices they charge consumer, the wages paid to employees, the amount of employees kept on staff, or the dividends paid out to investors?

And again, where do you think the money paid in taxes comes from? Do you really think that isn't included in the price of products?

[flaminbats]

149. more income does not equal less taxes...

unless we are talking about a regressive sales tax!

[3 Cents and Change]

150. Okay, now you're not making sense.

I never said that or even implied it.

[flaminbats]

152. if I made even less sense, you could possibly break even..

:smoke:

[Elginoid]

97. let's do what they do in finland-

if we're going to have sales and vat taxes- let's also peg fines(traffic & otherwise) to income...a couple years back, the president of Nokia got a $100,000 speeding ticket.

[sadiesworld]

107. That's hysterical!

Thanks for the laugh.

[librechik]

99. more lawlessness from the BFEE-how will having less regulation

over the market and society help us little guys? It doesn't. Our type of governemtnt happened because we were looking for ways to protect ordinary people from tyrants. The IRS (hypothetically) is there to make sure everybody pays there fair share. Removing it would only give more power to the cheaters.

it all provides cover and acquiescence to the huge looting mission they're on.

[Tight_rope]

101. Pure madman...I swear..I never thought they would go this low...

[flaminbats]

104. how nice of them!

With this kind of strategy Kerry doesn't need a campaign, just wait and let the Republicans blow themselves apart.

After the 2002 election in Tennessee and the primaries in Georgia..one would assume Republicans finally get the message! The Republican Governor of Tennessee was slaughtered in 2002 by a Democrat because voters thought the state sales tax was too high. In 2004 Isakson won the Republican primaries without a runoff because he was the only Senate candidate not supporting this VAT.

I would love to see Bush embrace the National Sales Tax. Watch as every Republican mayor, Governor, and state legislature screams murder! If Bush does this..every conservative state burdened with a huge sales tax will rebel by voting for Kerry. Supporting a VAT will give Democrats an electoral victory, the likes of which America has not seen since 1932.

Unfortunately I doubt Cheney and Rove are this stupid, but one can only hope!!!!:wow:

[salin]

111. Hmmm.... so what would this do to consumption/consumer spending?

When folks start questioning each purchase because of the high tax rate, wouldn't it start to depress spending? On a long-term view, this might not be a bad thing (we carry too much debt, with very little savings as a people) - but wouldn't it have a big impact on corporate america?

I have read three different estimates of figures of what the costs for a sales tax model to work - in terms of not shutting down the government by a soviet style economic collapse - with the numbers being: 25%, 40%, and 60%. Given that the first number comes from proponents who also espouse other seemingly fantastical thinking/assumptions, I would tend to think that the number they tout is a bit low... so lets go with the 40% number.

Need a notebook pad for school? That $2.50 just jumped up to $3.50 - maybe just buy two instead of four and try to make due....

Got holes in the shoes? That $60.00 pair of sneakers just jumped up to: $84.000.

The TV just went on the fritz? That $250.00 television just jumped up to $350.

Car breaks down and the repair bill will be $600. Is it taxed? That bill just jumped up to $840.

Now for those with high incomes, who get "relief" from the removal of the income tax - these are absorbable. But for those living on a limited, fixed income... these will be HUGE.

Those of the "ownership" class (as bush calls it) - will find a surprise when their companies start posting lower numbers because consumption has been greatly curbed.

Oh - and what about payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare? Do those still come out of our paychecks? Or is the sales tax to cover that as well... if so - then we have to adjust upward the amount of that sales tax.

Simplistic solutions packaged to a greedy public which often doesn't like to think about the details. This proposal, if real, is political pandering at its worst - and if they were to win on it - it could have even worse long term economic effects on this country than what has already been wraught by this whitehouse.

[wishlist]

114. Sounds like a devious Bushco campaign strategy to win undecided voters

Several angles that this helps Bush now. It sounds appealing to undecided, uninformed voters who would like more take home pay right away regardless of long term consequences. The people it hurts the most are those with low income and/or fixed incomes who pay very little if any federal income tax now but they tend to not vote as much either. Plus Bushco hopes media will be able to use the proposal to trap Kerry into a position of seeming to defend the IRS and taxes.

Could also push a few people with disposable income or some savings into going ahead with big purchases now instead of waiting, in order to avoid a new federal sales tax if the media does not debunk the idea.

[MarkTwain]

115. Kerry is Toast...

... if this gets any "currency" or political traction prior to the election. And NO amount of trying to "explain" or debate the details and ramnifications of such a complicated proposal to "sound bite" America would be effectual in opposition to it.

Face it. The Republicans and their stepford wingnuts would immediately jump at this bait. Moreover and critically, many unaffiliated undecideds and moderates would make their decision and it would not be John Kery.

Christ, a certain and considered percentage of moderate (Read: Reagan) DEMOCRATS would seriously consider crossing.

It would be the end of the Kerry candidacy and hence the end of this Republic with four more years of The Cabal who would then complete their five point (Presidency, House, Senate, The Media) plan by stacking SCOTUS - thus finding them being firmly grounded and in control for the next sixty years.

Plain and simple. This is overwhelming in its potential impact and tragedy for the Kerry candidacy.

[flaminbats]

140. I disagree...

this is the holy ark of politics---if Republicans dare to touch this..they will be political toast, pass the butter please! ;)

[Zynx]

116. To get the same amount of revenue, the VAT would have to be 15% or more.

That would hurt most families badly.

[Matilda]

120. You are right there.

John Howard gave us a GST (Goods and Services Tax), payable on
everything except doctor's visits and medical prescriptions, and
fresh food (but payable on cooked and pre-packaged food).

It definitely is toughest on the low-income families - for example,
here the price of luxury European cars dropped immediately, but
we got a tax on children's clothes and schoolbooks, which is
something that everyone has to pay, and is obviously going to take
a greater percentage of the earnings of a low-income family.

We pay 10% (at the moment - I forecast a rise if Howard is
re-elected, to pay for all his pre-election promises), but we still
pay personal income tax as well. Company tax dropped - that's
Howard's main constituency - but I wouldn't think a 10% tax and no
personal income tax would be enough to meet government expenses,
even if Bush abolished welfare, which I'm sure he'd love to do.

[blindpig]

119. libertarian bait

If they go with this we'll see if the libertarians take a pass on civil liberties in favor of filthy lucre. I suspect most will. In which case Kerry's only choice is to chuck the DLC bs and opt for a populist campaign.

[bowens43]

121. An attempt to shift more of the tax burden

on to the backs of the poor.

[NashVegas]

128. Y'all're Looking at This The Wrong Way

Imagine the havoc we could wreak with a nationwide boycott ...

[Ganja Ninja]

129. You would think the country Bush took over was totally screwed up.

So now we have a man who was never elected by a majority of the American people. A man who has never succeeded in any business endeavor in his life. This man, is trying to change the whole financial underpinnings of our society. This is a recipe for disaster. The inmates are running the asylum. We are doomed if Bush gets another 4 year term.

[dolstein]

133. NEWSFLASH -- As long as you have any taxes, you'll need the IRS

It doesn't matter whether it's an income tax or a sales tax -- you'll neen some governmental authority to collect the tax.

[fob]

134. The answer to this shit is, "What have they been waiting for?"

The repukes have had control of all branches of gov't for years, if this ISN'T an election year ploy, then why didn't they do this February 2001?

I call BULLSHIT.

[themaguffin]

135. Exactly

I hope they do make a series case of this. Can't wait til sleepy America hears this shit and see how worse they can get screwed. Then look at the poll numbers.

[bushisanidiot]

137. Yeah, make the poor people pay for the roads you drive your Hummers

on. Assholes..

We need a good old fashioned Robin Hood, dammit. Fuckin' tightwad, greedy ass, hyprocritcal repukes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveSZ]

138. It doesn't matter

We'll all be dead (to paraphrase Mr. Bush)

[bobbyboucher]

141. DESPERATION! They are pulling out ALL the stops.

What's next, a gun in every pocket?

[Darranar]

147. That would be idiotic - but this is Drudge, remember. n/t

[bluestateguy]

153. Move to a town along the Canadian border

Then just buy everything in Canada.

[seemslikeadream]

157. billionaires for bush

[vetwife]

158. Well thats one way of making the tax cut permanent !

What about the part in the consitution about providing for the common defense and welfare of its citizens? How will they pay for the MOAB !