Wet dream

[Gonz]

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...

 

[ResearchMonkey]

IRS, BAH!

Consumption tax is the way for equiviacy; those who use it more pay more and it keeps the focus capitolizmz

 

[HomeLAN]

I'd be a shitload happier if they'd drop the VAT idea. What a fucking adminstrative nightmare.

Gimme a sales tax.

 

[rrfield]

I was all for Steve Forbes and his flat tax proposal. 17% flat rate for all income above $36,000 a year. Wait, what's that? Just for income above $36,000? That's right... poor people would have paid NO INCOME TAX. Hell, in a lot of places $36,000 is middle class. Unfortunatly Forbes has a personality that make Gore and Kerry look like socalites. He couldn't sell his ideas. He especially didn't push the fact that poor families would not pay federal income taxes. Oh what could have been.

 

[MrBishop]

Income tax is too much of a cash-cow to even touch. It's a nice idea, but about as useful as tits on a bull.

It's also a nice way to bolster the wavering black and grey-markets If what you bought ain't registered...you certainly ain't paying tax on it, eh?

I liked the flat-tax idea...but a lot would have to go towards closing the swiss-cheese set of laws that riddle any tax system...including the existing income tax system.

 

[PT]

On one hand I like the idea, on the other I think it will be just as bad as the current system in a matter of a few years. Soon you'll see that there is no tax on BMW's, Jaguars, or Caviar. Surely the taxes on bread, milk and sugar will always be there though.

 

[Gonz]

On one hand I like the idea, on the other I think it will be just as bad as the current system in a matter of a few years. Soon you'll see that there is no tax on BMW's, Jaguars, or Caviar. Surely the taxes on bread, milk and sugar will always be there though.

Mo taxes food? I can't recall a single state I've been in that taxes food (save prepared & some packaged crap).

17% flat rate for all income above $36,000 a year.

How about 4% on every dime. No write-offs of any sort.

 

[PT]

We have a mutant sales tax in Mo. 3% food, 6% almost everything else. The bottom of the reciept can get pretty interesting. I was surprised myself when I moved down here, in Iowa it was 4% (1989) on everything except food, food wasn't taxed.

 

[PT]

Ok, just did a little research.

Cole County, Jefferson City. Sales tax = 6.225% Food Tax = 3.225%
Gasconade County, Owensville. Sales tax = 7.225% Food Tax = 4.225%

The county and each city gets a little piece of each, so they can also determine the effective tax rate depending on where you are. I just see adding a Fed tax on top of this would just clusterfuck it up even more.

 

[chcr]

TN taxes food at the same rate as everything else.

rr, one of the reasons a flat tax will probably not get passed is that poor people not only don't pay taxes, they are in fact subsidized. The government gives them "back" more than they paid in. I don't mind helping those who need it, but the system certainly gets abused quite a bit. A lot of people point at the "flat tax" and say, "See, it helps the poor." In fact, it costs them money. A true flat tax would need to be applied to everyone equally, IMO.

How about 4% on every dime. No write-offs of any sort.

More what I would have in mind.

 

[HomeLAN]

GA levies sales taxes at full rate on food.

 

[rrfield]

rr, one of the reasons a flat tax will probably not get passed is that poor people not only don't pay taxes, they are in fact subsidized. The government gives them "back" more than they paid in. I don't mind helping those who need it, but the system certainly gets abused quite a bit. A lot of people point at the "flat tax" and say, "See, it helps the poor." In fact, it costs them money. A true flat tax would need to be applied to everyone equally, IMO.

As fair as it would be, a true flat tax would never pass. The earned income credit would probably have to stay. So would the mortage interest tax deduction. Oh, and the per-child tax credit. Anything over 100,000 would be taxed at 20% instead of 17%...

You are right though, I forgot about the EIC. Duh. One group that would benefit a lot from the Forbes flat tax is the lower middle class...those making too much for the EIC and below $36,000.

 

[Gato_Solo]

As fair as it would be, a true flat tax would never pass. The earned income credit would probably have to stay. So would the mortage interest tax deduction. Oh, and the per-child tax credit. Anything over 100,000 would be taxed at 20% instead of 17%...

You are right though, I forgot about the EIC. Duh. One group that would benefit a lot from the Forbes flat tax is the lower middle class...those making too much for the EIC and below $36,000.

So you're not even willing to give it a chance? Come, now, you can't be that defeatist...

 

[Inkara1]

California has a "snack tax." Items that are 100 percent ready to be consumed at the moment you pay for them are taxable at the regular sales tax rate. Convenience store fare, fountain sodas, restaurant fare, etc. are taxed this way. Items that you have to prepare in some way yourself are not taxable, and are also eligible to be bought with California's "Golden State Advantage" card (the food stamp card). Milk, fruit juices, eggs, bread, cereals, meats, vegetables (canned and fresh), etc. fall under this group and aren't taxed.

Where it gets interesting is canned and bottled sodas. Sodas are taxable. In addition, stores are required by law to charge the California Redemption Calue (CRV), which is the recycling deposit. The idea is for you to save your cans and bottles and take them to a recycling center, where you'll get your CRV back. A lot of people don't do this though, and a surprising number of recycling centers don't pay. CRV for a 12-pack of canned soda is 48 cents. Now the good part: CRV is also taxable. So last time I was at Food 4 Less, they had selected varieties of soda on sale for $2.38 a 12-pack. I bought one 12-pack of A&W root beer and one of 7up. That would be $4.76, right? Wrong; after tax and CRV it comes out to $6.13.

 

[Gonz]

As fair as it would be, a true flat tax would never pass. The earned income credit would probably have to stay. So would the mortage interest tax deduction. Oh, and the per-child tax credit. Anything over 100,000 would be taxed at 20% instead of 17%...

EIC is theft from the non-socialists. Mortgage deduction & child tac credit could be recouped by the savings.

How about taxing those makeing under 100k @ 20%

100.001. - 250,000. @ 17%

205001+ at 10%


I would be screwed going to a flat tax but those making over 50, 75, 100k have no reason to be robbed for success.

 

[Gato_Solo]

EIC is theft from the non-socialists. Mortgage deduction & child tac credit could be recouped by the savings.

How about taxing those makeing under 100k @ 20%

100.001. - 250,000. @ 17%

205001+ at 10%


I would be screwed going to a flat tax but those making over 50, 75, 100k have no reason to be robbed for success.

So you advocate a reversed tier tax system? I'm surprised at you Gonz. 10% for everybody making $36,000 or more per year is sufficient for everything the Constitution requires taxes for. Social Security, as another tax, should be voluntary...but those who do not pay, do not get benefits.

 

[Gonz]

You know what I was infering. And I still say 4% is sufficient.

 

[Gato_Solo]

You know what I was infering. And I still say 4% is sufficient.

Screw that. I like my raises...10%.