Huckabee:'...abolish the IRS.'

T

trkhorn

25+ Posts
The pundits seem determined to paint him as an ultra-right wing gun-toting evangelical kook, but he has won me over with those three words.

National security aside, is there any greater diabolical entity than the IRS? On the one end, propped up by an army of tax attorneys, CPAs and federal employees who get fat off of it, on the other end by wage earners who view the IRS as a governmental Santa Claus on the basis of their annual "refund" checks.

In the balance is an overburdened middle class and a system that nurtures class warfare as we ultimately become like Europe. Not to mention a Social Security system that is set to bust along with a burgeoning, out-of-control deficit.

And if you make millions, you can just pay one of those tax attorneys $20K or so to find some loopholes and possibly pay virtually nothing. So the status quo thrives, and taxation via the IRS slowly saps economic mobility and opportunity which are the things that make America great.

Is there any other domestic issue remotely as important as our tax system? I don't even see a close second.

Huckabee won't get the nomination, but I support him for at least being the first serious presidential candidate to utter those words. If the Clintons are elected(and thus the status quo confirmed, celebrated, and expanded), I would think the issue would become front and center in 2012 or 2016.

I don't post much on here but really enjoy and respect the discussion and opinions of posters on this board and would like to hear some thoughts. The next logical step in my thinking would be to support the Fair Tax which I honestly don't know that much about other than the bare essentials. So again I would love to hear some of you weigh in.
 
Even if you abolish the IRS who is going to be responsible for ensuring that everyone is paying their taxes. As much as the IRS sucks, it's necessary.
 
This is what I know about the Fair Tax
The Link

On the surface it seemingly beats the living **** out of the IRS. If you don't spend any money, you don't pay taxes, none of this "fair share" nonsense.

TD, thanks for your insightfulness.
 
We don't need an IRS. People will happily pay their taxes, especially if there's a sales tax where people's interests are no longer in conflict.
 
I think we should simply set up an honor system...Everybody just sends in what they think the government should get out of their pay.

What's so hard about that?

Maybe I should run....
 
The IRS just does what Congress tells them to. Any loopholes that do or ever did exist were put in there by Congress. I love how people think it's the IRS's fault that they have to pay taxes, and how much.
 
Everyone hates the tax collector. Not saying the tax system doesn't need to be simplified but all the IRS does is collect the taxes and go after those that refuse to pay their taxes. The IRS does not create tax loopholes all it does is collect money.
 
Roger - Here's an easy way to make money. Take Warren Buffet on his $1MM offer. He's offered that to any CEO who can prove that they pay a higher tax rate than their secretary. I'm sure you can get a finder's fee or something.

And voting for a guy b/c he says he's going to do something that he cannot even possibly come close to doing is kind of silly. At least if you vote on the abortion issue you can hang your hat on court appointees.

I'd just as soon vote for someone who said "free porn for all", it's just as likely as "abolish the IRS".
 
BernOrange, you provided 3 links that show 3 different things that actually support what you are trying to deny.The first article is saying that the IRS doesn't have the most competent people and that the tax code is too difficult for even them to interpret. No joke, why would the best people go to work for the IRS? It is a government job and all the "good" money is in the private sector. As for the tax code being too complicated, once again no joke. The tax code is extremely complicated and thus if you scrap it you might be able to have an IRS that isn't making bad interpretations of the law.

The second article is arguing that there you are more likely to get audited living in Las Vegas than Milwaukee. While the IRS has internal procedures and policies around how to determine who to audit I'm not sure city in of itself is or isn't in that policy. But due to a cash economy in Las Vegas I think anyone who thinks that shouldn't have the highest per capita audit rate is fooling themselve.

The third article discusses allegations that the Clinton administration used the IRS as a tool of vengence. This very well may be the case but it is a case of the executive or legislature telling the IRS what to do, not of the IRS doing it on their own.

Once again I don't want to support the IRS but lets attack the problem, that is the Tax Code, not its agent.
 
Roger, you can read into it what you will. The IRS is a tool that is abusive (whether directed from above or from internal corruption). Even if the Tax Code were simple, the IRS could still persecute (not just prosecute) people.
 
Brubicker,

How about instead of flaming you just don't post?

By not going into the Fair Tax or other alternatives I was hoping others would pick up where I left off. But let's be honest... a high school kid could come up with a better alternative to the IRS. It is a steaming pile of **** that keeps CPAs and tax attorneys fat while keeping wage earners utterly and completely ignorant about how they are getting reamed by payroll taxes.

The Fair Tax is a national sales tax add-on that would replace both the payroll tax and income tax. No more IRS. It is a consumption tax... the more you spend, the more taxes you pay. If you are below the poverty line, you are rebated back up to the line. Certain items or "necessities" like groceries would be exempt. It actually rewards people who SAVE. The average Joe making $40K can actually get ahead if he decides to forgo the luxury car, trips to Vegas, and designer clothes.

"Oh but the price of goods would be too high." Not so. Eliminating payroll taxes gives companies a huge boost to their bottom line. Eliminating the IRS reduces the cost of doing business, which is passed on to the consumer. At the end of the day maybe there is a slight increase in price of goods but this would be more than offset by the fact that all that extra money from the absence of payroll/incometax is floating around.

The vehicle for tax collection would be no different than the state comptroller who collects sales tax(a pretty painless and simple task compared to the complete mess that is payroll/income tax calculation/collection).

Who could possibly argue that the status quo would be better than a Fair Tax scenario? Given our present-day consumer-driven economy, I would think revenues would skyrocket, and with any sort of fiscal management our deficits would become surpluses. Not to mention save the SS system which WILL be broke once the baby boomers start to retire in a few years. The CPAs and tax attorneys and other leeches would have to find new work. Other than that what a permanent shot in the arm to the economy. In the perfect world we could eliminate capital gains tax too and make the word "recession" obsolete.

Too many people in this country are satisfied with the status quo, or simply don't know any better. Then there are the few(as mentioned above) who get rich off of it who would fight to the death to keep things the same. It's a fight that needs to be fought IMO for the long-term health and freedom of this country. Whoever said "there is no real freedom without economic freedom" was spot on. I question our current economic freedom based on vile entities such as the IRS, and where we are headed in the future if something is not radically changed.
 
I'm a bit worried about the agency that has to send out hundreds of millions of checks every single month. I don't think that's reason alone to not examine it further, but it's a definite concern of mine and no one even seems to think twice about it.
 
And can you not see how eliminating the IRS would stimulate the economy and cause explosive growth, not recession?

Of course, we have to stop spending so much money too, but no one wants to talk about that.
 
TW... exactly. The fair tax collection process would be simple, as opposed to the rampant cheating, misreporting and general nonsense that comes w/income tax filing/paying. Not to mention taking out the cost of running the monolithic bureacracy that is the IRS and replacing it with a far simpler one that is more efficient.
 
Compare what Texas has in place (albeit not perfect) to most other states. Whose tax climate is more hospitable towards business growth Texas of New York?

Are people really suffering in Texas because we do not have an income tax?
Are the disequities from a non-progressive sales tax ruining our social fabric?
It makes sense to tax savings but not consumption?
 
TW - nowhere in any of that does it look like they think earning more is "evil" or achievement should be "punished".

is it your opinion that a progressive tax is punishment?

try again.
 
Actually I see nothing inflammatory about anything you posted.

If your opinion is that a progressive tax by definition is punishment, that's one thing. It would mean you're against nearly all the candidates (not just the Ds), but at least it would be consistent. It would also mean you're against the prebates of the fair tax, since it would also be a progressive system when compared to what you spend.

I refuse to equate a higher tax rate on large earnings to a "punishment". A punishment is something you avoid, something that teaches you not to do something. Show me the person who doesn't want to make that extra million because 37% will be owed in tax. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Couldn't I say that the "fair tax" punishes me for spending? Is that acceptable to you? No punishment on working hard, but as soon as I actually want something for that work, punishment. It's just as ridiculous.

You just don't like paying taxes. That's ok, but don't paint your dog pink and call it a pig.
 
Why is a 30% tax on commercial-private transactions unworkable? All I see there is a greatly simplified tax scheme wherein investment is greatly favored over stupid purchases. I.e. you buy a boat, there is a 30% penalty on the purchase price. You buy 1,000 shares of Intel, an acre of land or part of a business, there is no penalty.

Are there issues with the enforcement of the definition of "commercial to private" transactions that would require the IRS to exist? Of course. Do these issues approach the complexity or the scope of the ones stemming from an income tax? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top