# Republicans pushing to eliminate the IRS

1. Aug 2, 2004

### wasteofo2

REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS

**Exclusive**

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.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.

"“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. 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."

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

Not sure what to make of this...

2. Aug 2, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

I'd be awfully surprised if Bush proposed anything so radical. But you never know.
The US has a progressive tax sysem (the more you make the higher percentage you pay in taxes) - this would make it regressive.

3. Aug 2, 2004

### wasteofo2

That sounds very much like something Bush would do in that case...

4. Aug 2, 2004

### JohnDubYa

Not if you exempt rent and food, the two largest expenditures of the poor.

5. Aug 2, 2004

### Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
paying taxes are not in the constitution, so why do we have to pay?

6. Aug 2, 2004

### Dissident Dan

So the government can function.

7. Aug 2, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Actually, the income tax is in the constitution, by virture of the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913. However, when you consider that the government functioned for 137 years without an income tax, it's pretty silly to say that such a tax must exist for government to function.

Caveat (since everyone is getting so riled up over misinterpretations of posts lately): I know this is not what you are saying, Dan. You are probably saying that the government needs some form of tax to operate, though not necessarily the income tax. I can agree with that.

8. Aug 2, 2004

### Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
there is speculation that the amendment was passed illegally...

9. Aug 2, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

I assume you mean income taxes. Article 1, section 8, clause 1:
And speculation on conspiracy aside, an amendment is a part of the constitution.

10. Aug 2, 2004

### Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
yes, i meant income taxes...prohibition was also an amendment thank goodness it was repealed...

Last edited: Aug 3, 2004
11. Aug 3, 2004

### phatmonky

I would be very happy if this actually happened. It would make me feel good about voting for bush, not just mediocre.

12. Aug 3, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Heck, it would make me feel great about voting for Bush. He'd suddenly become my hero, bad grammar and all.

13. Aug 3, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Yes, you eliminate the IRS, and that's a big spending cut. Likely, you also revitalize the economy, and reduce unemployment some...but can you really cut the deficit in half by adopting a flat tax rate ?

14. Aug 3, 2004

### Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
do you realize the salary of government workers??? not to talk bad about family members, but i have several relatives who make a ridiculous amount of money for what they do, let alone the awesome benefits and all of the holidays they get paid for--such as ronald reagan's funeral...

15. Aug 3, 2004

### Robert Zaleski

That would be 82,495 full-time and 12,143 part-time bean counting scoundrels walking the streets of America in a daze. Sounds good to me.

16. Aug 3, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Yeah, my dad's a civil servant. He mostly sits around in a park reading the newspaper and listening to the radio. He's probably overpaid.

17. Aug 4, 2004

### phatmonky

My friends all work for the local postal encoding center (good job for college students with no experience). They get paid almost 15/hr with mandatory proactive raises because of the postal union. So everyone 2-3 months my friend gets another 15 cents an hour along with a check for 15 cents and hour since he began, up until something like 350 dollars.

I wish I just got bonuses and raises periodically, just for showing up.

18. Aug 4, 2004

Liberals often complain about a gap between the rich and the poor, but how many complain about the gap between those that sit on their duff and get paid $15/hour working for the government and those that get minimum wage working for private industry? 19. Aug 4, 2004 ### Dissident Dan So, you would feel better when the deficit goes from its already-outrageous current levels ($7.3 trillion ~\$24K/person - http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm) to levels that could cripple the economy by causing interest rates to increase confidence in our government to decline, and leaving the government with nothing to do with its tax income but pay off debt.

Before we had income taxes, that was ok because the government didn't spend so much. You can have massive increases in spending and tax breaks at the same time. That's just ridiculous. One or the other, people.

20. Aug 4, 2004

### selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
It has been worked out that to give the government as much income as the income tax does, a sales or VAT would have to be over 20%. So every five dollar item would cost six, and your monthly food and energy bill would go up a fifth. Prettty soon al your other monthly costs would go up too, as the tax, especially if it was a VAT, worked through the economy.

European countries that have a VAT also have an income tax.

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?