[greenamp]

Here

Read GOP lips:
No more IRS
Hastert hints of Bush's secret plan to end income tax in his 2nd term
Posted: August 2, 2004
9:30 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Is it real or is it an election year scheme to win votes?

That's the question many in this town are asking about House Speaker Dennis Hastert's proposal to eliminate the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service in a second Bush administration.


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.

Hastert, for his part, says he will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax.

"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," he writes in "Speaker," set for release tomorrow.

ADVERTISING

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, offered a preview of the House GOP leadership's post-election tax agenda in a March speech in which he said the Republicans are determined to repeal the federal income tax.

Long an advocate of a national sales tax, a confident DeLay told a conference of tax lobbyists that House Republicans will have hearings and push the issue in 2005 and 2006.

He said that replacing the income tax, payroll and other related federal taxes would provide more money for people to use, and he endorsed a proposal from Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., for a national sales tax.

Yet, even as Republican leaders in the GOP-led House, Senate and Bush White House have praised the concept of tax simplification over the last 3 1/2 years, the U.S. tax code has been expanded by over 10,000 pages as the Bush tax cuts and other changes – part of a total of 227 changes to the code – were implemented.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult," admits Hastert. "Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad."

Americans for Fair Taxation has been pushing the plan for years. Recently, the group has been pushing H.R. 25 as the vehicle.

"The current federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach. It's time for the FairTax," says the group's website. "From its humble beginnings, the income tax has grown like a cancer by taxing our hard work and discouraging savings and investment."

H.R. 25 would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax paid by the end user. That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed. The organization estimates consumer prices will drop by an estimated 20-30 percent as a result of the change.

The group's website describes how the bill's rebate function works. It assures that those living in poverty would not pay any tax.

"Under the FairTax, no American will pay taxes on necessities. The rebate will be equivalent to the tax paid on essential goods and services. The rebate will be mailed before the tax is actually paid [and] will be paid in equal installments at the beginning of the month. The size of the monthly rebate will be determined by the federal poverty level for a particular household size."

The bill's Senate version is S.1493, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., was introduced last year.

"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," writes Hastert. "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."

Would a campaign promise to eliminate the IRS be taken seriously? If the Bush administration were really planning such a dramatic move in a second term, why would campaign officials not be making more of it? Could Bush really deliver on a promise so bold?

These were some of the questions being asked around the Capitol today. Nevertheless, the leak from Hastert is sure to sell books.

"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity," Hastert continued. "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."

[Kitschy]

Sounds like a plan!

The majority of people will find this idea very popular I'm sure. I can see CPAs and lawyers and employees of the IRS not liking this very much.

At face value, this seems like a much better alternative than what we have now.

[Millennium]

This doesn't smell right.

The Libertarians have long talked of repealing most taxes and abolishing the IRS (on a federal level, anyway; I don't know about the states). This artiocle descrives something different, as it's a replacement rather than a complete repeal. Thus, even under such a system there would be a need for an IRS; someone has to administer the collecting of these alternative taxes, after all. It could be rebuilt from the ground up, but it would still be needed.

As it is, abolishing the IRS would require a Constitutional amendment anyway, or the following President could simply put it back into place. Ratifying a Constitutional amendment in only four years is almost unheard of; it just plain takes longer than that. Even getting it out to the states for ratification would be a trial and a half, because that step requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and even if every single Republican votes for it (which is unlikely; they, too, have their uses for tax dollars) no Democrats will.

I have thought about alternative tax systems before. In particular, I've been thinking about a system which shifts the entire income tax burden onto corporations. The Libertarians are too extreme, but they do have some interesting points, and perhaps more thought on this is necessary: is the current tax system really the fairest possible thing?

[MacGorilla]

If you are going to abolish the income tax and IRS, how is the government going to pay its bills? I mean they can't turn on a light without tax dollars.

I vote either a national sales tax or a 10% flat tax for everyone, corporations, no exemptions except for the those below the poverty line.

[vmpaul]

Hasn't anybody read Little Red Riding Hood? George Bush isn't your sweet, ole Granny. I wouldn't trust this administration to do my taxes, let alone revamp the entire tax structure of this country.

This has 'campaign ploy' written all over it. If it was so important how come we haven't heard anything about it till now? Or how come it wasn't part of his initial presidential campaign? Or heard a squeak of it in the last 4 years?

Think Dick Cheney and his secret meetings with Ken Lay and the rest of his oil buddies. I'm sure the Administration would come up with some innovative and fair idea to change the tax structure.

[tie]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
If you are going to abolish the income tax and IRS, how is the government going to pay its bills? I mean they can't turn on a light without tax dollars.

I vote either a national sales tax or a 10% flat tax for everyone, corporations, no exemptions except for the those below the poverty line.

I vote for a 5% flat tax for everyone, with exemptions for those below the poverty line. Make that 3%. I think Bush is trying to prove that you don't need tax dollars to run the government if you can borrow it all.

[greenamp]

"H.R. 25 would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax paid by the end user. That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed. The organization estimates consumer prices will drop by an estimated 20-30 percent as a result of the change."

I have mixed feelings about this. According to this, the income tax would be replaced with a 23% sales tax on everything except food and groceries. 23% tax on my g5 purchase earlier this year would've sucked big time, but would have been bearable in light of no income tax.

Business - to - business transactions are exempt, which I think might drive prices down a bit, although the end user would see no real savings after paying 23% sales tax.

I think I don't like this idea. Sales tax is truely harder felt on the poor, who don't neccesarily pay much income tax at all as it is. This tax would be harder felt by the poorest, not the richest.

After thinking this through here, I'm definatly "agin" it.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Hasn't anybody read Little Red Riding Hood? George Bush isn't your sweet, ole Granny.

Huh?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
Huh?

You never read LRRH?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Hasn't anybody read Little Red Riding Hood? George Bush isn't your sweet, ole Granny. I wouldn't trust this administration to do my taxes, let alone revamp the entire tax structure of this country.

and Kerry is? LMFAO!!

I've got to think about this tax a bit. Looks like it rewards middle income investors, and hits in the direction that Perot was leaning many years ago. I don't see where it repeals Corporate income taxes. Hmm...

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and Kerry is? LMFAO!!

And Kerry is what? I haven't heard anything from him about this. In fact, we haven't heard anything from Bush either. It's all been from Hastert.

I'd still be wary of any plan to institute another tax. Especially if it was from Bush.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I've got to think about this tax a bit. Looks like it rewards middle income investors, and hits in the direction that Perot was leaning many years ago. I don't see where it repeals Corporate income taxes. Hmm...

If you abolish the IRS, then there's no one left to collect the corporate income tax, so it would seem to imply that this would be repealed as well.

[chris v]

Meanwhile, I read yesterday about a Walmart distribution center getting a 100 million dollar tax break.

ONE HUNDRED MILLION! If we're going to abolish the income tax, we should also abolish corporate welfare. Why on earth can't the world's biggest retailer afford to build their own distribution center?

CV

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Here

Read GOP lips:
No more IRS
Hastert hints of Bush's secret plan to end income tax in his 2nd term
Posted: August 2, 2004
9:30 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


H.R. 25 would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax paid by the end user. That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed.

I can already think of a loop hole. Everyone can declare themself a business and every transaction is a business transaction so nobody has to pay taxes. How do you define end user?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
I can already think of a loop hole. Everyone can declare themself a business and every transaction is a business transaction so nobody has to pay taxes. How do you define end user?

Yep; exactly.

I am all for alternative tax structures, but this isn't the way to go about it. More of the tax burden needs to go to businesses and a2way from individuals, rather than vice versa. I didn't like Howard Dean's particular implementation plan, but I agreed with him on this basic principle, anyway. It's one of the few things I agreed with him on.

[deedar]

Sounds like yet another diversion from the real issues - much like the anti-(gay)marriage amendment - something that couldn't actually happen even if the Bushites wanted it to, and they don't, designed to appeal to the gut-level emotions of the lemmings. Sleazebags.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
I can already think of a loop hole. Everyone can declare themself a business and every transaction is a business transaction so nobody has to pay taxes. How do you define end user?

Yeah, there's nowhere near enough information available to make a decision either way.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yeah, there's nowhere near enough information available to make a decision either way.

I agree. Like I said, I'll need to look into this further and think about it a bit.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yeah, there's nowhere near enough information available to make a decision either way.

I think "Bush logic" applies here. There may well be enough information out there. In fact, there is no way you can prove there isn't enough information. Therefore we should work on the assumption that there is in fact enough information. Only in 20 years will we know for sure if there was enough information, and whether there were WMDs in Iraq.

By the way, your secret government sources have recently told me that there is enough information, and it will be released very shortly..