Is the talk about abolishing the IRS serious?

[ButterflyBlood]

I'm voting for the second. This could never pass, but unfortunately some people might be fooled into thinking it could.

[Cocoa]

1. it's feel-good stuff

red meat, or raw meat, whatever it's called, for the morans.

[Dookus]

2. of course it's not real

it's just pandering to those that hate the gummint.

[papau]

3. The rich want a "sales tax" - and then they'll buy tax free overseas

And Bush if he could would do whatever the rich and corporate ask.

[CaTeacher]

4. Don't dismiss this so quickly--this is real

I have heard repugs talking about this kind of garbage for years. If they keep majorities in both houses--they could very well do this.

We have to be proactive and STOP this terrible policy from happening.

If this is implemented, it would be devestating for social programs. There are many many programs that are underfunded as it is--and the unpopular ones would get dumped immediately. With no mandatory income tax--how easy would it be to fund things that are controversial or unpopular?

Think about it--this is a terrible idea. Like Kerry is saying--people need to pay MORE taxes NOT less. We all need to pay our fair share. We need to be very proactive and very vigorous in defending spending for social programs and also in defending the redistribution of wealth through our tax system.

[papau]

5. I agree n/t

n/t

[Protected]

12. Why do people want the super rich to be even better off?

I can't believe this idea is even being floated. It doesn't take more than a few seconds of thought to come to the conclusion that this is a very bad idea.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. Despite the fact it's an old saw trotted out every election cycle

A flat tax removes the equalizing effct of structured income tax; those who benefit most from our system pay the most. Thos e who are at the bottom, pay little or nothing.

This is a subterfuge that shifts the burden to the lowest class, who as always, will find the percentage of their incomes they pay in taxes rising yet again. It's a good thing they are powerless.

While it may be true that those who make the most pay the bulk of taxes into the system, there would be a coup tomorrow if the wealthy had to pay the same percentage of their incomes as the poor do.

Don't respond with that old saw "the por pay no taxes" either. It just ain't so, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

[IndianaGreen]

6. The only serious proposal was made way back in 1996

by Steve Forbes as part of his flat tax proposal. Forbes envisioned a tax system in which the money would be taken from the top, reducing the need for filing an income tax statement since only earned income would be taxable. Forbes said that the bulk of the IRS bureaucracy could be done away with.

No one else in the GOP endorsed the Forbes proposal. The reason is simple: our complex tax system exists for the sole purpose of bestowing special tax breaks to big political donors. Congress needs a complex tax system.

Any talk about a flat tax and abolishing or reducing the size and power of IRS is nothing more than election year propaganda.

I am sure than some sheep will believe this crap, just as they will believe that Democrats will take their precious guns away.

[Yupster]

10. Forbes wants a flat tax

It's Dick Armey who's been touting the National Sales Tax for more than a decade.

[IndianaGreen]

17. There have been many proposals, from a European style VAT

to the national sales tax. The VAT is probably the one that has the most merit, unfortunately it will only work if the income tax is dramatically reduced, flattened to a very low rate, or eliminated altogether. I doubt that Congress will do any of that, they love the tax system because it allows them to bestow favors on their corporate friends.

We also have to consider the impact on low income and working poor people by any radical changes in the tax system. While I personally favor a VAT and a low rate flat tax, such a scheme will not work in America for the simple reason that we lack the social safety net that the European social democracies have enjoyed for years. If we had things like free universal health care, free education (including college), a living wage standard, and a guaranteed job, we could then scrap our current tax system.

Another thing we would have to give up is our dreams of being a global empire. We should be investing in people, not in armaments!

[carpetbagger]

7. It's serious if they get the numbers in congress.

It'll take a Bush re-election and about four seats in the Senate, so long as it passes as a budget item (not subject to filibuster).

If they can do it, they will. Just like if we can pass universal health care, we will.

[CaTeacher]

8. And I for one--would

rather have Universal Health Care and lots of great social programs which benefit EVERYONE than keep my tax money to use for my own needs.

Health care for all--or a Lexus for me--for me, as a Democrat--that is a no-brainer.

[oasis]

9. Your average unread freep will have a new lie to rally round.

[demwing]

11. Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?

as the income tax was itself an amendment?

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

13. The Conservatives will never go for it.

The IRS is an integral part of maintaining power for them. With all the loopholes and manipulation of the system they get? Do you think they want to give that up?

Plus there is a whole industry built on fighting the IRS. The Conservatives advocating actual "small government" is not in their interest, they prosper in big government for themselves.

[tandt5044]

16. That amendment was

never ratified. The amendment would have needed approval from 75% of the united states (36) to be ratified. It never reached that magical number. The income tax was established to pay the expenses incurred during WWI and has never been abolished.

If you have a copy of the tax code, I would appreciate anyone being able to point out the section where the tax code states that our paying of income tax is mandatory.

[demwing]

18. That's a fantasy

The amendment was legally ratified in 1913. I would guess that you're referring to William Benson's book which tries to refute the ratification.

The basis of that book, that there was never a legal ratification, was rejected by the Supreme Court on many occasions. The debunking is detailed here:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/admendment_claims.htm#notRatified


As to your argument that filing is voluntary, that is debunked here:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/federal_income_tax_system.htm#filingVoluntary


So...I guess that means that the overturn of the Income tax would require a Constitutional Amendment, and that won't happen.

[demwing]

19. Answer: Yes, this requires an amendment, and will never happen.

"To amend the Constitution, a proposal must gain the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and three-fourths of the states. As a result, of the thousands of proposed amendments, only 27 have passed. Amendments must be proposed either by a two-thirds vote in Congress, or by a Constitutional Convention. Such a convention can only be held if two-thirds of the states' legislatures support it"

From:
http://www.constitutionfacts.com/cbody2.shtml

[quaker bill]

14. Yes, it is.

Abolishing the IRS is the pathway to a truly regressive tax code. While I doubt that they could get it done without 60 sure votes in the Senate, I have no doubt that they would do it if they could.

However, it is also a distraction. The repugs need a large controversial issue to debate through September and October to shift the focus off the Bush record. Rove is not going to let W spend the next 90 days explaining why Iraq was a "good decision".

Abolishing the IRS is probably just one small piece of the overall proposal. I expect privatization of Social Security and various other similar proposals to be wrapped into the "New Ownership Economy" initiative.

[flpoljunkie]

15. It reeks of desperation;shows Hastert is concerned about Dems taking House

And wouldn't that be sweet!