Bill to abolish IRS introduced

reply to post by zyrktec


That may not be true. I work in the public sector and we often use this tactic because we try to get jobs filled before funding is lost for them (something that happens frequently). Since the hiring process is long, this is pretty much standard procedure. I can't even tell you how many times i've interviewed people for a job only to be told later that its not going to be filled. By having a steady hand of applicants, it makes the overall process quicker and therefore more likely to get through.

Support this Bill and Others, as I do. Support! Support! Support!

"So says the Black Nobilities Serpent King, I am the Name without a Name. Support, Support, I say. Put that in the AiR!" -- PMP % tt IOI

And support abolishing the Tax System, but, forget about Fair Tax. It is just another Oligarchic Ruse. Individualism, cold and unfeeling, where deserve has no place, flat tax for all, we all pay the same percent. So be it a dollar or a Trillion, we all pay an equal share, which in turn sustains the Union. And for those who do not pay, what have they really earned? Well, what of those who do not vote, yet pay, are they not too getting a free ride? What is Government if not everyone living together at the expense of everyone else, why should Government to run the Government, be any less unfair?

"The moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
-- Omar Khayyam (1048- 1131)

reply to post by Total Reality


I'd like a breakdown on the party affiliation of the representatives, first of all.

More importantly, before you all go get excited about the idea of a flat consumption tax, do a bit more thinking about what it actually does.

Its great virtues are its simplicity and its perceived "fairness." But, just how fair is it? Those who have been pushing the flat tax are overwhelmingly conservative GOP, but they do not like it for the reasons you would think they do.

A flat consumption tax--standing alone, without a mirroring tax on investment income--and you can be sure you will not hear a word about this, as they try to sell you the horse with three legs--is actually a regressive tax in sheep's clothing.

Think about it: you earn, say, $1000 per month, and almost all your income goes to buy food, clothing, gas, shelter, etc. Paying a flat tax of say 15% means that about $120-130 of your monthly budget goes to taxes and will not be offset, and you need that money desperately to live a decent life.

However, say you make $1,000,000 a year. And there are many who do. These rich people will only pay a relative pittance--perhaps 3-5% of their income--in a tax scheme based on consumption.

How much food, clothing, etc., after all, can even a rich person buy?

And you hear nothing about a similar tax on investment income--passive profit that comes simply from using all your money to make even more. No, God forbid!

This is why these "conservatives" love the flat tax. It's a scam. It throws the greatest tax burden on those who make the least, gives the rich a free ride, and sounds so, so fair.

Don't get suckered into it.

edit for clean-up


[edit on 5-2-2009 by gottago]

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
I guess its better than nothing.At least they are suggesting it.
But it will never get through.
National sales tax wouldn't be as much, if people didn't buy as many things.
The amount they make from income tax is absurd.
They wont get rid of it.Besides having income tax makes it easier to spy on people.

You are assuming that federal income tax revenue needs to be replaced ? Ive got news for you, all of the money the goverment collects from the Federal Income tax goes directly to the Federal Reserve. It doesnt pay for any civic services, therefore we dont need a sales tax to replace it.

Just get rid of the Federal Reserve and you wont need the IRS or its tax

reply to post by Total Reality


The sales tax should be a

Value Added Tax

From raw material to finished product, at each stage the price is taxed by the producer, manufacture, and buyer.

National Sales Tax should be roughly 10%, imo.

Almost all of Europe has a VAT.

No income tax should exist to coincide with this tax.

I support the proposed bill, and am pleasantly surprised at how many signed on!

Nice idea. But since we actually need taxes in some form why not a simple 10% for everyone.

reply to post by gottago

Think about it: you earn, say, $1000 per month, and almost all your income goes to buy food, clothing, gas, shelter, etc. Paying a flat tax of say 15% means that about $120-130 of your monthly budget goes to taxes and will not be offset, and you need that money desperately to live a decent life.

Right, you pay for what you consume. $150 in taxes is not a bad deal. Most states already have a 5-7% sales tax anyways. Poor folks don't complain.

IMO, poor people need to pay taxes to, since they are the biggest burden on society.

A flat consumption tax--standing alone, without a mirroring tax on investment income--and you can be sure you will not hear a word about this, as they try to sell you the horse with three legs--is actually a regressive tax in sheep's clothing.

Any national sales tax would be a VAT, it would have to be. Investment tax is not an Income Tax.. it's a Capital Gains Tax.

However, say you make $1,000,000 a year. And there are many who do. These rich people will only pay a relative pittance--perhaps 3-5% of their income--in a tax scheme based on consumption.

How much food, clothing, etc., after all, can even a rich person buy?

Well let's see.. one purchase of a Mercedes or a Bentley and a rich person has just paid more in taxes that year then 10 poor people paying $150 a month.

Vacations, houses, clothing, the list goes on. If you think rich people sit in their home locked the doors and count their money all day while verbally accosting poor people for their own pleasure.. congrats, you have proved your self ignorant.

Rich people consume far more, at much higher prices. I just read an article about an investment banker spending over 6million on his own birthday party (1 million just to have ron stewart play) .. now add a 10-15% tax.

And you hear nothing about a similar tax on investment income--passive profit that comes simply from using all your money to make even more. No, God forbid!

Capital Gains Tax would not be taken away imo.

This is why these "conservatives" love the flat tax

True because the money returned would not be enough to cover socialist welfare programs.

Which I see as a good thing.

Anyone else note that the sponsors of the bill are primarily from the deep South?

reply to post by gottago


Lets say a person made only $10,000 a year. He has to buy food and other things that he needs. The producer of that food has to pay a tax too. The producer, in order to make money, passes down that tax and embeds it into the price of goods. Then the producer of the food has to pay accountants and other record keepers in order to figure out the complicated tax code, so the producer passes this cost down to the consumer again. Who does this hurt the most, the rich guy or the poor guy?

The current tax system is horribly unfair to the poor. Corporate taxes always get passed down to the consumer level which drives up the price of goods. Rich people can afford accountants, tax shelters, and political cover in the case of the democrats while the poor have to figure everything out on their own and if they mess up(which is very easy to do) they have to pay massive fines and interest.

There is a reason why liberals oppose any changes to the current progressive tax system where only elite liberals can skimp out on paying. They want everyone to be poor and that increases the power of the politician.

A fair tax proposes a rebate for everyone to cover the costs of essentials such as food. The poor would hardly pay anything. They would benefit more because all the hidden embedded taxes would probably make the price of goods lower in the first place. The rich would naturally pay more because they buy stuff.

Even if there was no rebate, the poor would probably pay less for goods anyways even with the added tax due to the elimination of embedded costs.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Your twisted semantics (investment income is exactly what it is, btw) and agile, pro-rich ballet aside, it is still a regressive tax/pig with a whole lotta lipstick on it.

Just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Way to go!

Originally posted by wutone

Why should one class of citizens be forced to pay taxes or deal with huge penalties while another class gets to snake out of it until the media happens to catch them?

A tax revolt is perfectly sensible at this time.

Two corrupt Politicians does not make a class of people. You want to penalize the innocent along with the guilty???? How disingenuous is that? If a dog bites me, should all dogs be killed?

No its not. Two wrongs don't make a right. Nearly 50% of the workers pay no income tax now. The top 10% of earners pay nearly all of it. Honesty has to come into play somewhere.

If you have a tax revolt, will you stop using anything paid for by taxes? You are blaming everyone for the actions a few. How fair and honest is that.

Is not the truth that you just don't want to pay. Do you pay any now. I pay about 35% of my income on top of payroll taxes and I pay half my employees Social Security as I'm a Sole Proprietorship. I earn less than a Senator by far. If the Obama taxes pass, I'll have to lay off a couple of employees to survive. How does that help?

They count on peoples inherent desire to get something for nothing and their being naive about taxes and how small business runs for them to get away with stealing from hard workers and giving it to people with no motivation.

My Wife and I worked 80 hour weeks for 15 years to build a business and still put in 100 hours a week between us now. Why should I be penalized? Why should I give money to adults who dropped out of school and work at Burger King out of pure laziness?

I don't mind at all helping pay for those who are mentally or physically incapable for some reason, but when able bodied and minded people bury themselves in beer and weed, drop out of school, collect food stamps and go to food banks that are for others, I get pissed.

Why should I bail out people who took out loans they knew they could not afford, or a Bank that gave loans to people they knew could not pay the payments? Those that took the loans are just as guilty as those who gave them. Nothing but a bunch of confidence people who think the world owes them. Losers who deserve to loose.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by admriker444


So, just don't pay our debt

You ever loaned money to someone? Do you expect them to pay you back?

You know if they did that a barrel of dollar bills would not buy a loaf of bread?

Money is not based on air. That is just a myth spread by the illiterate.

reply to post by gottago

investment income is exactly what it is, btw

Right, but since you obviously do not invest in stocks, and I do, I think I know what tax forms I am filling out.

It's called Capital Gains, 18% of profit from investments is taxed. The VAT is supposed to replace the individual Income, Social Security and Medicare income taxes. Unearned income, Capital Gains, and all Corporate Income Tax (corporate income tax is not unconstitutional) and Excise Tax would all remain in place.

I doubt the IRS could be abolished, or perhaps a new office would be opened because someone would have to over see the collection of all taxes, be it vat or otherwise.

And of course, spending on the poor would have to be cut dramatically, especially with SS, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other bs Socialist programs that are unconstitutional at the Federal Level. If you want Socialism, it must be paid at the State level. working good for California, I hear.

reply to post by Rockpuck


This is just the same simplistic, manipulative campaign--waged by the same species of political hacks who have brought us to where we are today--who cooked up the "death tax" racket.

Same analysis as in my first post applies--it was just another way of scamming the little guy so that the big fish could pocket even more millions.

And the lipstick is always the same--"Oh, we'll abolish the IRS!... Oh, it's a tax on dead people! How perverted!" Pure manipulation of the naive.

Any comments on what the percentage of tax would be?

Or limits on what would be taxed?
House payments for example.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Two corrupt Politicians does not make a class of people. You want to penalize the innocent along with the guilty???? How disingenuous is that? If a dog bites me, should all dogs be killed?

Two?!

After all the bailouts?

After all the spending?

It wasn't just TWO politicians that created the monster of a tax code that we have today.

It isn't just TWO politicians that keep voting for higher taxes.

It isn't just TWO politicians that spend for political power then turn around and ask for more from the American taxpayer.

It isn't just TWO politicians that voted for these massive bailouts that benefit the very people that caused most of the mess to begin with.

No my friend, the Obama tax cheats are just the tip of the iceberg.

How is it that the head of the Department of Treasury, the boss of the IRS, can skimp out on taxes and not pay huge fines or go to jail while the average person lives in terror of the IRS?

It is called ARISTOCRACY.

There is an ARISTOCRACY in this country. They don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Better yet, they push rules on everyone else that they don't have to follow themselves.

The IRS is just a tool of the aristocracy. The aristocrats have tax shelters, lawyers, loopholes, political cover, and enough money and power where taxes hardly mean anything. But taxes mean a ton to us. It is a method of control and an implementation of fear.

This goes beyond social programs. The IRS is a whip on our backs.

The only responsibility we have is that we allow these people to run us into the ground.

Oh, let's hope this goes through!

I have a story of how the IRS took all money that I transfered from one mutual fund to another and called it all "capital gain!" In fcat, after nearly pulling over to toss my cookies (so distraught I was!) on the way to discuss the matter with them, and making it to the office, I managed to prove that I had a capital LOSS.

But even though they had the records showing this, they STILL chose to send me a tax bill for $75,000! Based solely on counting each removal of money from a fund as 100% capital gain!

Something is VERY wrong when citizens are harrassed like that!

Didnt see if anyone said this in the thread already but the tax code that John Linder of Georgia is proposing is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is 133 pages of tax code compared to our currently astounding tens of thousands of pages of tax code. I have provided a link for those who are curious about this issue.

Rep. John Linder

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Any comments on what the percentage of tax would be?

Or limits on what would be taxed?
House payments for example.

From what I have found the tax rate will be 23%.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

I'm leary. It seems like the government will get us one way or another.
Why don't they just tax extra on famous people who have billion dollar homes and pay thousands of dollars on one dress? I mean sheesh!