Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

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

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN AUG 01, 2004 21:01:25 ET XXXXX

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."

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

You could double the economy over the next fifteen years

The economy of China, maybe...

 

[open_mouth_]

I'd like for this to happen, but it ain't gonna

 

[JackFrost2012]

God, this is such pure evil genius on the part of the Bush administration. Of COURSE the IRS isn't going to be abolished, not in our lifetimes at least. But float the idea, get the votes from people who go "no income taxes woo!!", then let the reality of the bill not passing come crashing down AFTER you're voted into a second term and can blame Congress for its failure ... pure evil genius.

 

[LinesInTheSand]

God, this is such pure evil genius on the part of the Bush administration. Of COURSE the IRS isn't going to be abolished, not in our lifetimes at least. But float the idea, get the votes from people who go "no income taxes woo!!", then let the reality of the bill not passing come crashing down AFTER you're voted into a second term and can blame Congress for its failure ... pure evil genius.

Yes Jack, that's called "politics"! Amazing, eh?

 

[Nerevar]

gee, I wonder who benefits the most from this? Oh wait, the filthy stinking rich, who else benefits from the Republican agenda?

 

[pollo]

the good thing is this will never get passed either in the house or senate.
Teh pow3r of Ham1lt0n liv3s 0n!!!11ONE!1

 

[JackFrost2012]

Yes Jack, that's called "politics"! Amazing, eh?

Sure is, Lines!

 

[StrikerObi]

gee, I wonder who benefits the most from this? Oh wait, the filthy stinking rich, who else benefits from the Republican agenda?

Christ, could you maybe try to hide your trolling even a little next time?

As for the VAT or National Sales Tax, I fucking wish it would happen but deep down inside I know it won't. But if the Republicans convince me otherwise there's a slim chance I might vote for them.

 

[Nerevar]

Christ, could you maybe try to hide your trolling even a little next time?

Trolling, or statement of truth? You decide.

 

[StrikerObi]

Trolling, or statement of truth? You decide.

No, it was trolling seeing as you injected your own opinion into it. The "filthy stinking rich" part gave it away.

 

[Nerevar]

No, it was trolling seeing as you injected your own opinion into it. The "filthy stinking rich" part gave it away.

Oh, so saying it only benefits the rich wouldn't have been trolling?


Political commentary is almost always LOADED with opinion, get used to it. It doesn't make my statement any less true.

 

[Diablos]

Statement of truth? Riiight. This is another quality lie from the Bush administration, it's what they do best.

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

I really doubt this is going to happen, not that I wouldn't mind seeing it. They would also need to pass an amendment to nullify Amendment XVI. If not they would probably end up still taxing our income on top of the VAT.

"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

Am I the only one that reads this as this whole thing is only going to be in his book and will never actually be mentioned on the House floor.

 

[Deku Tree]

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Catchpenny]

This is less about the IRS and more about implementing regressive taxation, the perpetual wet dream of many Republicans. Claiming to abolish the IRS is just a way to sell it to the masses.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Even if this doesn't actually happen, this is exactly the kind of spirit I want to see in my elected representatives. Makes me tear right up. Bless.

 

[Nerevar]

This is less about the IRS and more about implementing regressive taxation, the perpetual wet dream of many Republicans. Claiming to abolish the IRS is just a way to sell it to the masses.

Exactly. There are some within the party that truly believe the only "fair" method of taxation is a poll tax, and truly want to implement that. Hey, it's ok if only the rich can vote!

 

[Sirpopopop]

Alright, can someone to explain to me how a VAT or "regressive" taxation would work. As is, the amount of taxes that most people have to file is a chore. However, does Hastert make any mention of the rates that would be given on this VAT.

 

[StrikerObi]

The way a national sales tax works is like this.

We get rid of federal income tax and replace it with a nationalized sales tax, which sits somehwere around 27%.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of money. But remember how much more money you will be making at work. How much do you lose from income tax every year? You'll probably end up saving money int eh long run.

The national sales tax is good because it taxes everyone equally. But, because of the way people spend money, the rich give more to the system than the poor. Joe Average goes and buys a small 21" television and gives 27% to taxes. At the same time, Mr. Moneybags also buys a TV, except he buys a 60" High Def Plasma screen. So, they both bought TVs but Mr. Moneybags gives a lot more to the tax system because 27% of a huge ass plasma screen's price is a lot more than 27% of a 21" CRT's price.

Now, that's how a national sales tax works. I don't know how the "Value Added Tax" works but I assume it's something similar.

 

[Nerevar]

The way a national sales tax works is like this.

We get rid of federal income tax and replace it with a nationalized sales tax, which sits somehwere around 27%.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of money. But remember how much more money you will be making at work. How much do you lose from income tax every year? You'll probably end up saving money int eh long run.

The national sales tax is good because it taxes everyone equally. But, because of the way people spend money, the rich give more to the system than the poor. Joe Average goes and buys a small 21" television and gives 27% to taxes. At the same time, Mr. Moneybags also buys a TV, except he buys a 60" High Def Plasma screen. So, they both bought TVs but Mr. Moneybags gives a lot more to the tax system because 27% of a huge ass plasma screen's price is a lot more than 27% of a 21" CRT's price.

Now, that's how a national sales tax works. I don't know how the "Value Added Tax" works but I assume it's something similar.

Wow, just wow. No offense, but this is JUST PLAIN WRONG

What percent of your budget goes to paying groceries? To paying rent? To paying fees like car repair and the gas / mass transit fare for the daily commute? If you're like most people, that is the vast majority of your budget. And guess what - that amount of money stays the same whether you're rich as all hell or living day-to-day. Because in the end, Dick Cheney and John Kerry eat roughly the same as the poor single mother of two who lives in the housing projects. And under a flat national sales tax, they all pay the same in taxes for that food. A flat tax is a perfect way to tax the poor into starvation.

Only someone who is too rich to have to worry about managing enough money to pay for groceries would think a flat sales tax or VAT would be fair.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Because in the end, Dick Cheney and John Kerry eat roughly the same as the poor single mother of two who lives in the housing projects.

Utterly wrong. See: story about Kerry and wife at Wendy's. Teresa Heinz Kerry had to point to a picture of chili and ask what it was.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

We get rid of federal income tax and replace it with a nationalized sales tax, which sits somehwere around 27%.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of money. But remember how much more money you will be making at work. How much do you lose from income tax every year? You'll probably end up saving money int eh long run.

The national sales tax is good because it taxes everyone equally.

Ehh, not really. The less money you have, the higher percentage of it ends up getting spent on things covered by income tax. A person spending 70% of their income on taxable items at 27% will overall pay 18.9% of their income to tax, whereas someone spending 40% of their income on taxable items at 27% will overall pay 10.8%.

 

[Bat]

Yeah, the thing is that if you look at statistics, the poorer you are, the higher % of your income is spent on products and services. While Rich people do buy more expensive goods, a very signficant % of their income goes to savings and investments, which would not be taxed. Thus, a national sales tax would actually tax poorer people at a higher %, which is ridiculous.

EDIT- This is also the lamest cover story possible for a way to severly raise the taxes of the poor and lower those of the rich. I mean, can't you do better than "OMG Tax Lawyers are expensive!"???

 

[kablooey]

The way a national sales tax works is like this.

We get rid of federal income tax and replace it with a nationalized sales tax, which sits somehwere around 27%.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of money. But remember how much more money you will be making at work. How much do you lose from income tax every year? You'll probably end up saving money int eh long run.

The national sales tax is good because it taxes everyone equally. But, because of the way people spend money, the rich give more to the system than the poor. Joe Average goes and buys a small 21" television and gives 27% to taxes. At the same time, Mr. Moneybags also buys a TV, except he buys a 60" High Def Plasma screen. So, they both bought TVs but Mr. Moneybags gives a lot more to the tax system because 27% of a huge ass plasma screen's price is a lot more than 27% of a 21" CRT's price.

Now, that's how a national sales tax works. I don't know how the "Value Added Tax" works but I assume it's something similar.

God, if that really is how it works, it's a terrible idea. Taxes are scaled for a reason. Even if everyone pays the same rate, this is still balanced toward the rich. Say that number is 27%. Take two people, one who makes $1 million, and one who makes $30,000 a year. The $8,000 in taxes that the person who makes $30,000 a year is infinitely more debilitating than the $270,000 that the millionaire would have to pay. This sounds like the kind of shit Republicans have been trying to pull for ages now.

edit: I see i was beaten to punch by four other people. D'oh.

 

[Hitokage]

Hey, we're already taxing the lower brackets with payroll taxes and then diverting that money away from social security to cover the hemorrhaging budget.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Is food even taxed? I believe prepared food is, but I know at least in my state most food isn't taxed.
Nevermind, was thinking wrong about my last sentence I erased.

 

[Dan]

Even if this doesn't actually happen, this is exactly the kind of spirit I want to see in my elected representatives. Makes me tear right up. Bless.

+1

Real comtemplation of real change. Good stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone makes a ton of money fairly, they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage in taxes. That's unfair. If some of you bitter folks want to get stricter laws and whatnot to make sure that money is being made fairly, go for it, but to punish people for being successful... that's not right. Last I checked we weren't a socialist nation.

 

[OmniGamer]

Is food even taxed? I believe prepared food is, but I know at least in my state most food isn't taxed.
Plus, I'm fairly sure those money having folks don't buy the same amount of ramen I do =P

Exactly...i'm clipping KFC coupons and they're eating $50 hamburgers.

 

[Nerevar]

As far as I'm concerned, if someone makes a ton of money fairly, they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage in taxes. That's unfair. If some of you bitter folks want to get stricter laws and whatnot to make sure that money is being made fairly, go for it, but to punish people for being successful... that's not right. Last I checked we weren't a socialist nation.

Ever heard "it takes money to make money?"
Ever looked at the median family income of people at top-tier universities?
Ever heard of the cycle of poverty?


The greatest majority of people in this country who are wealthy came from wealthy or upper-middle class families. They got that way because their parents had the money to afford private schools and a university education (nevermind the SAT classes and after-school activities that require money to participate in and are a prerequisite for acceptance into a good university). Honestly, why does 90% of Americ have this view that the poor are just lazy blowhards who are siphoning money from the rich through welfare and sitting around all day watching Jerry Springer? It's stupid and uninformed, and you'd do well to stop pretending that it's the truth.

 

[Bat]

+1

Real comtemplation of real change. Good stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone makes a ton of money fairly, they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage in taxes. That's unfair. If some of you bitter folks want to get stricter laws and whatnot to make sure that money is being made fairly, go for it, but to punish people for being successful... that's not right. Last I checked we weren't a socialist nation.

First of all, it's not about fair and not fair, it is about necessity. Poorer people have less income after meeting the necessities that can be taxed. Richer people have more. If the goverment wants to spend like it is doing, it HAS to tax the rich more, or else you'd have a third of the country starving (not necessarily literally).

Secondly, the "we're not a socialist country!" argument is total crap. People might label the US a capitalist based goverment, but it has major socialist aspects to it. Public education, welfare, social security, the minumu wage, organized labor....all these things are socialist institutions. We are what we are as a country; we're not conforming to some arbitrary economic lable people throw around.

 

[Gruco]

I think overrelying on any single tax is foolish, and broad collection attempts work best. I think the best solution is a combo of the income tax, targeted excise taxes (gas, tobacco, alcohol), and pigovian taxes. I don't know much about VAT, from what I understand they tax the marginal increase in value from manufacturing products and creating services. I could see it as a useful supplement, I guess, but eliminating the IRS is just a stupid dramatic idea designed to get attention. National sales taxes are a terrible idea, for reasons already mentioned...

One argument I always hate for change (particularly a flat tax, but this applies to others to some extent) is that taxes are too complicated. Multiplying your taxible income by the tax rate is the easiest thing in the world, it's the various calculations of deductions and credits that make it complicated. So if you want to make it easier, you have to do something about the lobbying efforts for tax incentives.

The reason progressive taxes can be considered "fair" is the inherent advantage in making money that wealthy people have. "The first million is the toughest" kinda thing. It's not a punishment for making money, but a way of mitigating the tendency for the wealthy to exploit their economic power over others.

Progressive taxes are economically sound too, because of the idea of diminishing marginal vaue of money. Going from 1,000 to 10,000 is a much bigger difference than going from 1,001,000 to 1,010,000. Taxes are less of a detriment when people are getting less utility from their money.

Unfortunately we already have to deal with payroll taxes, and special dividends and capital gains rates, which are absurdly regressive aspects of the systems, and give having a lot on money and sitting on your ass preferential treatment over having a job.

Also, progressive tax != socialism. Yeesh.

 

[Dan]

Ever heard "it takes money to make money?"
Ever looked at the median family income of people at top-tier universities?
Ever heard of the cycle of poverty?


The greatest majority of people in this country who are wealthy came from wealthy or upper-middle class families. They got that way because their parents had the money to afford private schools and a university education (nevermind the SAT classes and after-school activities that require money to participate in and are a prerequisite for acceptance into a good university). Honestly, why does 90% of Americ have this view that the poor are just lazy blowhards who are siphoning money from the rich through welfare and sitting around all day watching Jerry Springer? It's stupid and uninformed, and you'd do well to stop pretending that it's the truth.

You're the only one making these generalizations. I'm not the one with these ignorant stereotypes, and I don't care for you putting such words into my mouth.

I'm well aware of these institutionalized problems. I fail to see how taxing the rich a higher percentage actually solves anything. Doing that is just a band-aid, and it's unfair to everyone involved. The rich lose out on money they made fairly, and the poor aren't helped out in any meaningful way. Rather than just throw money from the rich to the poor, I'd rather see these institutionalized problems addressed directly. I don't have answers to those difficult questions, but I do know that no one is really trying to answer them.

I apologize for being more interested in getting to the root of the problem than you. I'm interested in long-term solutions, not short-term band-aids.

 

[Nerevar]

You're the only one making these generalizations. I'm not the one with these ignorant stereotypes, and I don't care for you putting such words into my mouth.

I'm well aware of these institutionalized problems. I fail to see how taxing the rich a higher percentage actually solves anything. Doing that is just a band-aid, and it's unfair to everyone involved. The rich lose out on money they made fairly, and the poor aren't helped out in any meaningful way. Rather than just throw money from the rich to the poor, I'd rather see these institutionalized problems addressed directly. I don't have answers to those difficult questions, but I do know that no one is really trying to answer them.

I apologize for being more interested in getting to the root of the problem than you. I'm interested in long-term solutions, not short-term band-aids.

I'm merely pointing out the flawed reasoning in the concept that it's "unfair" to tax the rich more than the poor. Neither you nor I even attempted to offer any solutions to the root problem. And now you're attacking me for not putting forth a point in an issue which you wrote nothing about? My point was that the only way to "fairly" subsidize the massive government spending we currently have is to tax the rich more, a point which you seem to disagree with. THAT WAS IT. Maybe you should actually try responding to the point I'm making rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks against me directly if you want me actually engage in any sort of reasonable debate with you.

 

[Triumph]

Ugh. A national sales tax or VAT would be a horrible, horrible idea. One of the main reasons Bush's idiotic tax cuts have failed to spur economic growth is that rich people don't spend the majority of their money- it sits there and collects interest, making them richer.

The tax cuts were the dumbest thing in the world, IMO. Sorry, but if people REALLY want things from their government- you know, like the ability to keep us safe, the ability to take care of ourselves when we're older with Social Security, and Health Care, then someone is going to have to pay lots of taxes. That's the way it works. The money can't just keep getting shat out of the air(or from foreign investors to be more accurate). That's fiscally criminal. And if someone has to pay lots of taxes, it should be people making lots of money. I don't care if people call that class warfare- I firmly believe we are entrenched in a silent class war in this country. And the lower classes didn't start it, but if we ever woke up we could finish it for damn sure.

 

[maharg]

I do know that no one is really trying to answer them.

Um, there's an entire (very large) field of study dedicated to trying to answer them. Regressing the system to earlier forms of taxation that are not equitable to the majority of the population is NOT an answer, it is a bandaid.

Don't get me wrong, the taxation system should be simplified. No question about that. But the principles on which it stands are more or less sound, assuming no drastic change in the way money works (bank reserve system) is undertaken.

The fact is, money that the rich do not spend needs to be reintroduced into the economy somehow. Progressive taxation achieves this. And as others have pointed out, the proposed flat sales tax is NOT equitable AT ALL. It goes entirely the other way, with poor people paying more of their income than rich people. I think the idea is absolutely indefensible. At least a poll tax appears equitable.

 

[Dan]

I think it's unfair to tax the rich a higher percentage. I don't see how you countered that in any form.

As for personal attacks, I made none. You however, said the following: "It's stupid and uninformed, and you'd do well to stop pretending that it's the truth, " in reference to generalizations that I didn't state.

Sure, if the government wants to keep spending what it does, it has to find ways to do it. But again, maybe, just maybe, the government shouldn't be spending so much that it is forced to treat a portion of its citizens unfairly. One wrong doesn't make another wrong right.

One little example: Gov. McGreevey of NJ is planning to raise taxes for the richest 26,000 families in New Jersey by 3%, bringing their total tax rate to 8 or 9%. The money gained from this is going directly to senior citizens and the poor. I really don't see what's fair about that. It seems to be straight-up stealing to me.

 

[Lathentar]

Wow, just wow. No offense, but this is JUST PLAIN WRONG

What percent of your budget goes to paying groceries? To paying rent? To paying fees like car repair and the gas / mass transit fare for the daily commute? If you're like most people, that is the vast majority of your budget. And guess what - that amount of money stays the same whether you're rich as all hell or living day-to-day. Because in the end, Dick Cheney and John Kerry eat roughly the same as the poor single mother of two who lives in the housing projects. And under a flat national sales tax, they all pay the same in taxes for that food. A flat tax is a perfect way to tax the poor into starvation.

Only someone who is too rich to have to worry about managing enough money to pay for groceries would think a flat sales tax or VAT would be fair.

The wealth stock their cabinets with the finest meat, wine and cheese. They can also afford to be wasteful.
The wealthy live in large houses costing $750,000 or more.
The wealthy buy more expensive cars and pay higher car insurance, because of this.
The wealthy use premium gas and don't use mass transit.

Do you think wealthy individuals eat ramen, live in trailers, drive cars from the 60s and use city buses? Are you insane? Of course I'm generalizing, but I don't see your point at all.

 

[Dan]

Um, there's an entire (very large) field of study dedicated to trying to answer them. Regressing the system to earlier forms of taxation that are not equitable to the majority of the population is NOT an answer, it is a bandaid.

I don't think I said this was an answer, per se. It would however be an attempt at real change within the government, which I think we see too little of nowadays. That I applaud, although I certainly don't think that alone is going to solve the country's institutionalized problems, or even play a part in it. I do, however, think that everyone should be taxed at the same rate. I think that's fair. The government can then figure out how to operate at that budget. I don't think that treating some citizens differently than others is fair, and I don't really care for the idea of compromising that principle just to make the government's job easy.

 

[Triumph]

You're the only one making these generalizations. I'm not the one with these ignorant stereotypes, and I don't care for you putting such words into my mouth.

I'm well aware of these institutionalized problems. I fail to see how taxing the rich a higher percentage actually solves anything. Doing that is just a band-aid, and it's unfair to everyone involved. The rich lose out on money they made fairly, and the poor aren't helped out in any meaningful way. Rather than just throw money from the rich to the poor, I'd rather see these institutionalized problems addressed directly. I don't have answers to those difficult questions, but I do know that no one is really trying to answer them.

I apologize for being more interested in getting to the root of the problem than you. I'm interested in long-term solutions, not short-term band-aids.

Funny thing- I HAVE an answer for you. You're not gonna like it, tho.

If society is serious about fixing these ills, then one way to do it would be to use the Government as a tool to support those who can't afford to send their kids to SAT classes, who can't properly provide food and day care for their children. We are a country of plenty, a country of wealth and power. Why should some of our citizens have to suffer because they lost out on the genetic lottery? Why should some of our citizens have an advantadge just because of who their parents are?

The way to do that is for the rich to pay more taxes than the poor. If I'm making 25,000 a year and paying roughly 20% in taxes, then why is it unfair for someone making 250,000 a year to pay roughly 30% in taxes? Because they "earned" that salary through a life of priviledge and genetic blessing? Because they "worked hard" at the board room and I didn't when I unloaded trucks or served bitchy, mean spirited petty rich people their food?

The system DOESN'T work as it is now. If it did, the average salary of a CEO compared to the average worker in his comany wouldn't have increased from 40 to 1 to roughly 500 to 1 in 25 years. Having those who earn more pay more is only the beginning to redressing the issues. Spending that money properly so that all Americans have a shot at a better future is the next crucial step, and frankly I wouldn't want ANY of the Republicans or Democrats doing that for me(well, except maybe Kooch).

 

[Triumph]

The wealth stock their cabinets with the finest meat, wine and cheese. They can also afford to be wasteful.
The wealthy live in large houses costing $750,000 or more.
The wealthy buy more expensive cars and pay higher car insurance, because of this.
The wealthy use premium gas and don't use mass transit.

Do you think wealthy individuals eat ramen, live in trailers, drive cars from the 60s and use city buses? Are you insane? Of course I'm generalizing, but I don't see your point at all.

I'll tell you why.

Because the percentage of money that I spend on things relative to my entire income is higher than what a stupidly rich person spends on theirs. If I'm making 25 grand a year and spending 20 of it a year on living, well then where the fuck does that leave me if I want to get ahead in life? Oh yeah, fucked.

Whereas let's say you make 500,000 a year. Let's say you spent 200,000 of that on living expenses and spurious shit. Who has a better opportunity to get ahead now? You can take that 300,000 you have in the bank and invest it. I can take my 5,000 and got to Disney World. Whoopty fucking doo.

 

[sc0la]

While I generally applaud any serious look into (smart) systemic change. This simply isn't it IMO. This is being sold as some kind of revolution to get the tax monkey off your back, "think of what you would save!." If everyone is suddenly paying less taxes through some magic scheme, then how are we going to continue to provide the same services that we had been? Answer: We can't. Even if you are arguing for increased privitization they are not going to be filling the gap overnight (assuming that is even a good idea).

What I would prefer to see is a change in our measurment of national well being from one of purely economic measure (the GDP). Something that actually measures our quality of life, ability to attain basic services like medical care and education, in addition to economy. Our goals in tax reform shouldn't be to wildly double in a set period of time. Tax reform should concentrate on reducing waste and streamlining the process so that it is easier for us and our money is spent more effeciently and to greater benifit. We should be looking to steadily grow our economy while simultaneously growing our other more human indicators of well being. We all know bubbles burst.

 

[Nerevar]

I think it's unfair to tax the rich a higher percentage. I don't see how you countered that in any form.

As for personal attacks, I made none. You however, said the following: "It's stupid and uninformed, and you'd do well to stop pretending that it's the truth, " in reference to generalizations that I didn't state.

Sure, if the government wants to keep spending what it does, it has to find ways to do it. But again, maybe, just maybe, the government shouldn't be spending so much that it is forced to treat a portion of its citizens unfairly. One wrong doesn't make another wrong right.

One little example: Gov. McGreevey of NJ is planning to raise taxes for the richest 26,000 families in New Jersey by 3%, bringing their total tax rate to 8 or 9%. The money gained from this is going directly to senior citizens and the poor. I really don't see what's fair about that. It seems to be straight-up stealing to me.

The statement in my post was meant to refer to people in general, not you in specific. Secondly, if you don't recognize your own attacks in your post then maybe you should read it again. Thirdly, you acknowledge that there is a problem (inequality, social ills, etc.) yet you put forth no method to fix it. You are saying that "taxing the rich more is wrong" while attacking any argument that rationally justifies it. To your point about taxation being straight-up stealing, maybe you should look at it from the other end. Are you saying it's rationally justifiable then to let the senior citizens and homeless starve, or fail to get the medication they need to survive? Someone has to help pay for their care, why not tax the people who can afford to carry that burden?

The wealth stock their cabinets with the finest meat, wine and cheese. They can also afford to be wasteful.
The wealthy live in large houses costing $750,000 or more.
The wealthy buy more expensive cars and pay higher car insurance, because of this.
The wealthy use premium gas and don't use mass transit.

Do you think wealthy individuals eat ramen, live in trailers, drive cars from the 60s and use city buses? Are you insane? Of course I'm generalizing, but I don't see your point at all.

Is this supposed to be a joke post, a troll, or both?

 

[Triumph]

While I generally applaud any serious look into (smart) systemic change. This simply isn't it IMO. This is being sold as some kind of revolution to get the tax monkey off your back, "think of what you would save!." If everyone is suddenly paying less taxes through some magic scheme, then how are we going to continue to provide the same services that we had been? Answer: We can't. Even if you are arguing for increased privitization they are not going to be filling the gap overnight (assuming that is even a good idea).

THANK YOU!

Americans need to stop being such pussies. "Oh, that man wants to raise taxes!" Yeah? So fuckin' what? As long as taxes aren't raised on the middle and lower class, who fucking cares? The 10% of Americans who are obnoxiously, offensively wealthy? Aww. Boo hoo. Be glad the serfs don't rise up and start cutting your heads off and having sex with your daughters in public, motherfuckers.

 

[The Fronde]

Sure, if the government wants to keep spending what it does, it has to find ways to do it.

Well that's the trick isn't it? People don't want to be taxed very much, yet they expect the government to at the very least maintain all current services and generally add more or expand. Saying that they should find "some way" to do this without maintaining adequate tax levels is nice, but not too practical or realistic. Budgets get balanced by cutting things, and the big ticket items that could lessen the burden are the ones we feel are most necessary.

I'm well aware of these institutionalized problems. I fail to see how taxing the rich a higher percentage actually solves anything. Doing that is just a band-aid, and it's unfair to everyone involved. The rich lose out on money they made fairly, and the poor aren't helped out in any meaningful way. Rather than just throw money from the rich to the poor, I'd rather see these institutionalized problems addressed directly. I don't have answers to those difficult questions, but I do know that no one is really trying to answer them.

Fixing these societal problems is going to to take more than just good intentions. Throwing money to the poor is wrong, but the money that will be needed to initiate and fund meaningful programs has to come from somewhere, and no one would tolerate government cutting back so-caled essential services. So I agree with Nerevar. How do you design a tax system that treats everyone as fairly as possible? The majority of the rich were born into wealth while the majority of the poor are born into poverty. There are exceptions, but they seem to be just that, exceptions. Depicting one group as lazy and the other as enterprising is criminal (not accusing anyone). Those that have been given the most should be asked for the most back. Those that have nothing should be given a decent amount of aid, not just cash, to give them a shot at elevating themselves. I don't care if that comes from taxes on the rich or budget cuts, in the end it's coming from the same Treasury. Handouts aren't the answer, but this sort of uniform tax code isn't either.

 

[Lathentar]

Is this supposed to be a joke post, a troll, or both?

Let me rephrase myself. What seperates the rich and the poor are the differences in their life styles which include food, housing, transportation and entertainment. Basically eliminating your argument that rich and the poor spend the same amount of money on their basic needs.

 

[Lathentar]

I'll tell you why.

Because the percentage of money that I spend on things relative to my entire income is higher than what a stupidly rich person spends on theirs. If I'm making 25 grand a year and spending 20 of it a year on living, well then where the fuck does that leave me if I want to get ahead in life? Oh yeah, fucked.

Whereas let's say you make 500,000 a year. Let's say you spent 200,000 of that on living expenses and spurious shit. Who has a better opportunity to get ahead now? You can take that 300,000 you have in the bank and invest it. I can take my 5,000 and got to Disney World. Whoopty fucking doo.

I would love to see a graph comparing spending a year to income a year in the United States.

 

[Kuramu]

THANK YOU!

Americans need to stop being such pussies. "Oh, that man wants to raise taxes!" Yeah? So fuckin' what? As long as taxes aren't raised on the middle and lower class, who fucking cares? The 10% of Americans who are obnoxiously, offensively wealthy? Aww. Boo hoo. Be glad the serfs don't rise up and start cutting your heads off and having sex with your daughters in public, motherfuckers.

you need to be careful to not shoot your economy in the foot by taking too much money out. I'm by no means rich, but i want rich people to keep as much of their money as we can possibly afford. After all, i've never been hired by a poor man.

 

[Nerevar]

Let me rephrase myself. What seperates the rich and the poor are the differences in their life styles which include food, housing, transportation and entertainment. Basically eliminating your argument that rich and the poor spend the same amount of money on their basic needs.

And I'll reiterate, is that a joke post or a troll? Because quite frankly, if you think people who make $100,000+ of their income are spending roughly equal amounts of their budget on basic necessities like food and transportation as people below the poverty line (of which there are over 32 million in this country), anyone with any basic grasp of personal finance isn't going to take you seriously.

 

[Pimpwerx]

A VAT isn't a bad idea, but wages need to be normalized first. Until you draw some parity in what people earn, then a VAT is only going to benefit the rich and screw the little guy. But all things being equal, a VAT is a good thing IMO. As for getting rid of the IRS, yeah right. A cheap ploy. PEACE.