Bush 2005 - no more IRS, income tax

[MisterMike]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39762

Read GOP lips:
No more IRS
Hastert hints of Bush's secret plan to end income tax in his 2nd term

"In his upcoming book, "Speaker: Lessons from Forty Years in Coaching and Politics," Hastert says the bold move – sure to be immensely popular with voters – will be the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda in a second term."

What do you think? If this comes up on the campaign, would it seal the deal for anybody?

I think it would be a big hit. Leveraging a national sales tax instead of an income tax is a step away from socialism and leverages our capitalist market.

Comments?

 

[MisterMike]

Some more info, but this guy is not "holding his breath."

http://boortz.com/nuze/200408/08032004.html#fairtax

 

[rmcrobertson]

Embarassing realities:

1. Americans pay less of a percentage of their income as tax than anybody else in the industrialized world.

2. The primary motives behind abolishing the IRS and income tax--like the primary motives behind Bush's, "tax cuts--" are right-wing politics; in "cutting the government," all these folks are going to be cutting welfare, medicaid, education, Head Start, and every other program you ever heard of. In other words, what this is really all about is an attack on the poor, the working class, and the lower middle class.

3. It might be good to seriously consider what's going on when extremely wealthy types like George Bush (who has never done a plain day's work in his life) his VP, and the rest of the guys push for tax cuts on the grounds that tax cuts help the economy.

4. It is understandable that the wealthy and powerful would push these agendas. It is understandable that so many folks who would be totally screwed by them also push these agendas.

5. If this happens, wave bye-bye to: public parks; after-school programs; mail service; state parks; cheap school lunches; home nurse visits; vaccination programs; college scholarships and cheap loans and work-study programs; emergency rooms available to everybody...the list is endless. Which suits the guys pushing this stuff, because the real point is to alter, to abolish, or to corporatize all these things. And guess who will be making money off the changes?

6. Oh well. Never happen anyway, though I hope the Prez tries.

 

[michaeledward]

A looney idea from the least effective Speaker of the House in the history of the United States. That this topic is even being discussed (by others, not we) demonstrates the victory of sound-bite over substance.

Go Denny Go!

 

[PeachMonkey]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39762What do you think? If this comes up on the campaign, would it seal the deal for anybody?

Only for the extremely wealthy, and the extremely ignorant.

I think it would be a big hit. Leveraging a national sales tax instead of an income tax is a step away from socialism and leverages our capitalist market.

Such a program is the ultimate regressive tax structure, designed to eliminate all societal benefits, guarantee the dominance of wealth over all other factors, eliminate the so-called "American Dream", and lead eventually to revolution.

When people such as yourself demonstrate such a fawning worship for the "capitalist market", I often wonder if you really think out the consequences of a purely market-driven society. Adam Smith himself cautioned against the dangers of handing too much power to capitalists.

 

[MisterMike]

When people such as yourself demonstrate such a fawning worship for the "capitalist market", I often wonder if you really think out the consequences of a purely market-driven society. Adam Smith himself cautioned against the dangers of handing too much power to capitalists.

LOL...OOOK..forget I eeeeeven asked...LOL

 

[PeachMonkey]

LOL...OOOK..forget I eeeeeven asked...LOL

I'm not quite sure what this statement means. Is it a): "Capitalism is such an obviously great thing that no criticism of it can be brooked, and since you seem to believe there are flaws to it, we cannot have a discussion", or is it b): "I'm not really equipped to enter into an intellectual discussion about societies and how they can best be supported"?

 

[Mark Weiser]

The Major Problem with Government is People run it. By reconginzing this as the main problem you can move forward in establishing a system that is fair to everyone(LOL) this will never happen in the history of mankind anyone in the seat(s) of power will do whatever is neccessary to maintain or solidify his or her base of power.

If You or I were in those same shoes as the elitist. We would be doing the same thing. I for one am waiting for the ballon to pop on our economy here in USA and God Help Us when it does.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

 

[Cryozombie]

When people such as yourself demonstrate such a fawning worship for the "capitalist market"...

...I'm not quite sure what this statement means. Is it a): "Capitalism is such an obviously great thing that no criticism of it can be brooked, and since you seem to believe there are flaws to it, we cannot have a discussion", or is it b): "I'm not really equipped to enter into an intellectual discussion about societies and how they can best be supported"?

Monkey... I think that was C) Since you resorted to a silly personal attack instead of discussing the issue, I am blowing you off.

 

[Cryozombie]

Back onto topic...

While I dislike the IRS and taxes in General... Doing away with them will, In my opinion, Hurt us more than it would help us.

Those taxes, while silly and extravagant in many cases, are neccessary to keep the machine oiled.

 

[PeachMonkey]

this will never happen in the history of mankind anyone in the seat(s) of power will do whatever is neccessary to maintain or solidify his or her base of power.

If You or I were in those same shoes as the elitist. We would be doing the same thing.

This is a pretty bleak view, Mark... I think no matter where people stand on capitalism/socialist, tax/no tax, if we can't at least agree to try and make things better *somehow*, we're hosed.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Monkey... I think that was C) Since you resorted to a silly personal attack instead of discussing the issue, I am blowing you off.

Technopunk,

Point well taken.

MisterMike,

I apologize for the implied personal attack. My frustration with our society's unwillingess to actually examine the flaws and amoral nature of lassez-faire capitalism often gets the better of me, and I took it out on you.

 

[MA-Caver]

Reading that topic heading I thought to myself : CAUTION: Bush's Intelligence is Showing!
I hate taxes as much as anybody else, but like most people I can see how important they are in maintaining our country.
I argued the fact with someone (younger than me, who was whining about it) that if we didn't have taxes, we wouldn't have good roads, good police and fire protection and most importantly... no military to protect this country from all invaders foreign and domestic. All that among other things.
Some taxes are ridiculous but many are necessary. We need to get rid of the fools that abuse the tax system and make those who avoidance to pay up. The rich need to pay up just as much as the working class does.
The Government needs to quit over-spending and get into sensible spending (no $400 hammers or $800 toilet seats and so on.)
There's a better way to do taxes... the present system isn't it.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm not quite sure what this statement means. Is it a): "Capitalism is such an obviously great thing that no criticism of it can be brooked, and since you seem to believe there are flaws to it, we cannot have a discussion", or is it b): "I'm not really equipped to enter into an intellectual discussion about societies and how they can best be supported"?

Well,

When people such as yourself demonstrate such a fawning worship for the "capitalist market",...

OK, right there I didn't need to read much further to tell you assume way too much from my first post. I'd personally rather not get too engaged in a string of emotionally charged thread drift. But if you can point out where I expressed that I'm game.

...I often wonder if you really think out the consequences of a purely market-driven society.

Sure, but can ANYONE tell what that road leads down to? If someone has the clarevoyancy, please step forward. Is it really the "elimination of the American Dream and Revolution?"

But I'll say this, if we have to have taxes, I'd rather it be on my expenditures, rather than my earnings before I can spend it.

So if you would tell me then, since regressive tax schedules will only batter the poor deeper back into their caves, how far whould your ideal dream of progressive taxation go? 75%?

Even I can realize there has to be a balance. We are not 100% capitalist nor 100% communist. There has to be a balance on individual freedom and social responsibility. The arguing tends to come in when it gets politicized and the inevitable differences on where to draw the line.

 

[MisterMike]

MisterMike,

I apologize for the implied personal attack. My frustration with our society's unwillingess to actually examine the flaws and amoral nature of lassez-faire capitalism often gets the better of me, and I took it out on you.

Not to worry. I get it all the time

I also posted up above while you were writing this response, so now maybe we're even

 

[JAGMD]

A national sales tax system would be much more equitable than the current income tax based system. Based on this nation's GDP, a 10% national sales tax on non-grocery items would actually increase tax revenue, and therefore no reduction in your precious programs would be necessary. Futhermore, prior to this administration 55% of all tax revenue was paid by only 5% of the population. (It's a fact, look it up) So much for the "rich" not paying their "fair share" and all that BS liberal rhetoric. BTW I have a negative net worth after factoring my student loans and I am one of the "rich" people they are talking about. (no my student loans aren't tax deductible either because I am "rich"). By making it a sales tax system, the tax burden is spread equally to those who participate in the overall economy. It would also eliminate the tax shelters that the ultra-rich use to pay less taxes, so you should love it. Then if we could just eliminate all of the inefficient government programs you love so much we could eliminate the deficit. Then we could drill for oil in 10 acres of vast 'tundra' aka frozen wasteland in Alaska and largely eliminate our foreign dependence on oil. Then the Saudis couldn't use our $$$ to fund terrorism.

 

[Trident]

Great if it would happen, but I'm not holding my breath. There would have to be a major marketing push to sell it to the public & offset the high pitched whine that would eminate from the media.

Maybe he should take 1 preliminary step to generate public support: stop withholding income tax from people's paychecks. If everyone in America had a write a quarterly or monthly check to the federal government to pay their taxes, I predict there would be a huge uproar. That would be the push necessary to really get the income tax system changed.

Mike

 

[PeachMonkey]

A national sales tax system would be much more equitable than the current income tax based system.

If you define "equitable" as: "percentage of individual wage-based income", then yes, it would be more equitable. However, this "equity" provides no real balance and fairness, and provides no support for a social contract. Rather than repeat myself on these issues, I refer you to the following post:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=255507#post255507

Based on this nation's GDP, a 10% national sales tax on non-grocery items would actually increase tax revenue, and therefore no reduction in your precious programs would be necessary.

It would also increase the tax burden of the lower and middle classes. This is, in and of itself, unacceptable. In addition, since they will have less disposable income, these classes will reduce their consumption and spending. How is any of this a good thing?

BTW I have a negative net worth after factoring my student loans and I am one of the "rich" people they are talking about. (no my student loans aren't tax deductible either because I am "rich").

My heart bleeds for your negative net worth, truly, but do you ever wonder if you're going to be able to eat the next day? Do you have to decide between rent and medicine for your kids? Just curious.

And if we reduce taxes as you propose below, how do you think your student loans would ever have been funded?

By making it a sales tax system, the tax burden is spread equally to those who participate in the overall economy. It would also eliminate the tax shelters that the ultra-rich use to pay less taxes, so you should love it.

I've already commented on your ideas of "equality". In addition, eliminating the tax shelters you describe is meaningless... the shelters won't be necessary since the wealthy will pay *even less* than they do now under your system.

Then if we could just eliminate all of the inefficient government programs you love so much we could eliminate the deficit.

Can you provide figures which back up these claims of inefficiency? Say, comparing a number of social welfare programs to businesses? Feel free to include the Pentagon in your descriptions of "inefficient government programs"... how many TRILLIONS of dollars can they not even account for? How many social programs would that pay for?

Also, can you please tell me exactly how much of the deficit could be eliminated by eliminating "inefficient programs"? Welfare, for instance, accounts for less than 1% of government expenditures.

Then we could drill for oil in 10 acres of vast 'tundra' aka frozen wasteland in Alaska and largely eliminate our foreign dependence on oil. Then the Saudis couldn't use our $$$ to fund terrorism.

Sorry for the thread gankage, but you brought up ANWR.

Where exactly do you get your numbers from? The USGS claims that in a best-case scenario, ANWR would provide less than 1% of US domestic oil production over its 50-year lifespan. The region would take 10 years to become productive, and another 15 to reach maximum production. ANWR *proponents* recognize that _2000_ acres would need to be touched, and this doesn't include the roads and pipelines constructed between the 35 oil areas to be used in ANWR and Prudhoe Bay.

See: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=780

This refers to US Geological Survey factsheets for additional reference.

It seems to me that requiring automakers to adjust light truck and SUV fuel economy is a far more productive way to reduce US foreign oil dependence. Moreover, kicking the President whose family has decade-old ties to Saudi oil might be an even quicker way to get US money out of terrorism's pockets.

 

[michaeledward]

Then we could drill for oil in 10 acres of vast 'tundra' aka frozen wasteland in Alaska and largely eliminate our foreign dependence on oil.

You forgot the prepositional phrase at the end of this sentence ... "for six months". (it's a fact, look it up).

Thanks for contributing. Mike

 

[MisterMike]

I do not think this would be more of a burden on the lower class because being in the lowest tax bracket they would take home more money each week and if the sales tax was set up right, there wouldn't be tax on food, rent or clothing anyways.

And if we want to talk about fair, a flat sales tax is a lot fairer than a tiered one based on income.