Abolishing the IRS

#1
tigervol9802

tigervol9802

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
10,404
Likes
6
#1
Read an op/ed in the WSJ yesterday about the Tea Party and the desire of some of them to abolish the IRS. I've never really understood this. No matter what, there has to be some type of revenue agency in a level of government. I get streamlining, reducing the size, etc. but abolishing?

I was hoping some proponents of this could give me a little help into the mindset of how/why this is a good idea and what would replace it as a revenue agency for the government.

:hi:
 
#2
#2
they want to replace it with a VAT. personally i think at VAT of the size we would need to make it happen would make the black market go nuts.
 
#5
#5
not sure how you could have a flat tax and eliminate the irs. at least not completely.
 
#6
#6
IRS allows the left to continue their class warfare stance. No way they let it go away
 
#8
#8
Wouldn't a flat tax make everyone except the top's taxes skyrocket since such a large percentage comes from the top bracket?
 
#10
#10
Weezy said:
Wouldn't a flat tax make everyone except the top's taxes skyrocket since such a large percentage comes from the top bracket?
Click to expand...

the way I understood the flat tax as Steve Forbes proposed is that there would be a flat 17% tax for all income groups with an exemption on the first 25k or so. All other exemptions, exclusions, etc. would be eliminated and our tax form would be the size of a 3x5 index card.

The problem is the word "income". Warren Buffet is worth billions, but his "income" is reportedly only 100k/year (which means he pays his secretary well, since she pays more in income tax than he does).
 
#11
#11
i bet buffett's taxes under a flat tax would go up consideribally considering he wouldn't have the gates foundation write off anymore.
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
tigervol9802 said:
Elaborate?
Click to expand...

The income tax is not and never has been about revenue gathering efficiency.

It was revealing that Obama said that it was a matter of "fairness" to raise taxes on the wealthy even if it did not result in more revenue.

For "Progressives" the income tax is a means of punishing the wealthy/successful and manipulating behavior. It is also quite handy as we've often seen for inciting class envy and warfare.

FWIW, the IRS is not really a Federal agency. They are more like a federally mandated collections agency with a universal monopoly. This one of the tools the Progressives used to get around many of the lawsuits that would have questioned the legitimacy of the income tax as it is now applied. (Remember Progressives and Progressive ideology dominated both parties from around 1910 until Goldwater '64)

In its early history, the income tax was more akin to what we would know as a capital gains tax. Wages were not always considered "income" since there is no profit... it is a straight barder: labor hours for a fixed price.
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
droski said:
you could definetly cut back the staff, but you still need an enforcement division.
Click to expand...

Yes but it would not have to be a quasi-government agency that can apparently get by with assuming you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

It should be a Federal law enforcement agency instead probably operating under the DOJ.
 
#16
#16
sjt18 said:
Yes but it would not have to be a quasi-government agency that can apparently get by with assuming you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

It should be a Federal law enforcement agency instead probably operating under the DOJ.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather it be a division of the US Secret Service, the DOJ, as we have seen recently, is too politicized.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top