http://www.drudgereport.com/rnc.htm

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.

What do you think about this? Do you support this plan? Do you think the Republicans are really going to attempt this?

As a libertarian, I think this could move things in the right direction, but I'm concerned that the Republicans may only be trying to bring back the more anti-government variety of conservatives, who have expressed disappointment with some of Bush's policies, even though he did cut taxes.

Great. So, the only revenues brought into the Government coffers are from purchases? Riiight... take that to the next logical step.

If you purchase more, you contribute more. If you can't purchase, your contribution is less... and will be viewed as such. The more you consume, the more of a stake you have in the Government.

It'll become even more biased towards those that have, whilst those that have less will be devalued or ignored.

Don't let go of this phrase - "No taxation without representation"... it's a good axiom. What's being proposed here will result in representation being bought and paid for... there's a difference. The current system demands that you pay taxes BECAUSE your voice is heard. This proposal will result in you paying taxes BEFORE your voice is heard.

I think it's wrong.

^^I understand what you're saying, Head, but the poorest wage earners don't have to pay US income taxes either. They would not pay any federal taxes either way (they buy food, but I doubt that will be taxed on a federal level).

Also, the amount or method of taxation won't change "one man, one vote". At least, I don't see how it would.

As a general proposition, I think it's a great idea. The Current U.S. taxation system encourages taxpayers to find "loopholes" to reduce their tax liability as much as possible. A flat tax on the sales end would encourage savings and would tax all income brackets equitably. Income "brackets" would become an obsolete term! I think that basic necessities for living should not be taxed, e.g., grocery food items. However, prepared food items, e.g., restaurant food, etc., should be taxed at the same rate as everything else.

But let's be realistic here. Think of all the bean counters (accountants) that would be out of work if such a simplified federal taxation system actually went into place. It will never happen. :(

As a general proposition, I think it's a great idea. The
But let's be realistic here. Think of all the bean counters (accountants) that would be out of work if such a simplified federal taxation system actually went into place. It will never happen. :(

Yes, unfortunately a lot of people, not only in govt., but also in private industry make a living off of the fact of the current tax structure. So they would put up an obstacle to this plan. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

If you purchase more, you contribute more. If you can't purchase, your contribution is less... and will be viewed as such. The more you consume, the more of a stake you have in the Government.

How is that different than now, where the more money you make, the more of a stake you have in the government? Same problem arises, and the effects are quite obvious... just look at roads, schools, public parks, law enforcement, or anything else supported by tax money in rich areas vs. poor areas.

The main problem I have with having only a sales tax is that poorer people spend a disproportionate amount of their income on goods and services (as opposed to saving or investing like you can do if you have spare cash). So you have poor people paying a greater percentage of their income to taxes than you currently do (as opposed to now where the rich have a higher tax rate... something which some may not think is fair but I think is just peachy). It'd be pretty hard to work out a way where poor people have to pay less sales tax than rich people, short of creating a system like food stamps (and the accompanying bureaucracy).

If you purchase more, you contribute more. If you can't purchase, your contribution is less... and will be viewed as such. The more you consume, the more of a stake you have in the Government.

It'll become even more biased towards those that have, whilst those that have less will be devalued or ignored.

How is this different from the current system? Make more money, have a larger stake in the government. The top 10% income bracket in the US pays 64.89% of federal income taxes. How is that any different? The bottom 50% pay only 3.97% of income taxes and yet recieve the benefits of more services than do the top 50% (medicare, welfare, etc). How is the bottom 50% being ignored?


My fear of this system is that the government is now so large that the only way for it to survive would be to have a substantial sales tax. This may have the effect of creating an incentive for people to live with less and so save more of their money, which there will be more of because there is no longer an income tax. This might cause severe economic stagnation and inflation. We must strive to remember that it is much easier to create a bueacracy than to destroy one. The current tax system has a profound amount of influence on our economy.

There is actually a marked difference.

Currently, everyone has an equal stake in the running of things, regardless of how much tax they pay. You pay a percentage of your income in taxes and that percentage is the same for everyone.

If you introduce a purely VAT system, then the engine that creates the taxes is no longer simply people's income or profits, but products. More popular products will bring in more revenues to the Government. I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that if that kind of system were introduced, Governments would provide a more condusive environment for certain products/services to flourish if it meant more tax money for them. This would lead to a very close relationship between the companies making these products and the legislature. Taking it to it's conclusion, you'd have elected officials being co-erced (even more than they are today) by companies who can directly affect the exchequer by altering their marketing strategies.

Which means that non-elected, profit making organisations have a direct line (if not actually a stranglehold) on the system that governs how we live our lives.

Furthermore, there would be a direct feeling of disenfranchisement for everyone in the lower income brackets who don't/can't spend as much and therefore don't contribute as much. At least in the current framework everybody pays what they CAN, not what they CHOOSE. (Unless you're self employed, but that's another matter ;) )

Now, you might argue that this isn't so different from what we have today, but I'm not that cynical. Yet.

I think that the ethos behind an income tax is basically much more socially inclusive and less devisive than a purely sales based VAT.

You pay a percentage of your income in taxes and that percentage is the same for everyone. Perhaps in the UK, but not in the colonies. Here's the 2004 U.S. tax brackets (http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/index.htm), which range from 10% to 35% depending on your income.

I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that if that kind of system were introduced, ... This would lead to a very close relationship between the companies making these products and the legislature. ...

Which means that non-elected, profit making organisations have a direct line (if not actually a stranglehold) on the system that governs how we live our lives. And how is this different than what we have today?

Furthermore, there would be a direct feeling of disenfranchisement for everyone in the lower income brackets who don't/can't spend as much and therefore don't contribute as much. At least in the current framework everybody pays what they CAN, not what they CHOOSE. Hell, I don't think the majority of the people in the lower income brackets today care if they are enfranchised or not. It's a damn pity, but a truth I fear nonetheless.

Now, you might argue that this isn't so different from what we have today, but I'm not that cynical. Yet. Apparently, I am.

you dont see the lessening of government by eliminating the IRS?
Its a very large step in the right direction.

Next , they should make lobiests go away. If money doesnt talk so loudly now, why is corporate america camped out in the senate halls?

Your statement that this system would "lead to" govenment favoritism in trade, you havent been to D.C. in a long time , have you.

Eliminate P.A.C altogether,create a federal sales tax, eliminate lobbiests, make house and senate members hold "neighborhood meetings" to get the true pulse of their constituants (give us a little bang for our buck) and you'll find alot of politicians,and lawyers looking for honest work.

......suddenly I find myself awakening from such a dream....

P.S. Is Dev still running for President?

I know this is a sorta old thread but I see people in here doing some talking but not actually knowing what they are talking about.

First, the Bush administration never said that they wanted to get away with the IRS. Yes, there are a few congressman that say that, but not the republicans and not the Bush administration. Yes, most, if not all, the congressman that are trying to do so are republican, but that doesn't make it a republican issue, if you see what I'm saying.

Bush did say that it sounds intriguing and he is willing to talk about it that something needs to be done, but that is not the same as endorsing.

Having said that, for all the information you need go visit www.fairtax.org.

Click on the research tab at the top and then the link to the faqs. There you can click on the "Fairness and Federal Tax Reform" link, scroll down and read how people who are considered in the poverty level will get a reimbursment check at the beginning of the month to help with supplies. The amount of the check is based on their annual income, if they are single or married, and if they are a rasing kids.

A single non parent like myself only making $9,310 or less would recieve $178 a month to help out. I make more than that so I wouldn't qualify.

However, the people sponsoring the bill do admit that they would need some gov't body in place to keep track of the reimbursement checks, but not one so large as the IRS.

Also in these links is information on how the job quality will improve in the US and how more companies from foreign countries will want to establish work places here, thereby making the US a very competitive world market place, also creating more jobs here. Win/Win for everyone.

Based on the calculations I have done for myself I would have more money at the end of the month based on this system than I currently do and that makes me happy in the pants.