Cruz: Abolish The IRS...

[Jarhead]

Why would I need to support my claim if you agree with it?

I dont agree with it.

You've never heard of 'Local Standards' in regard to determining tax liability for back taxes?

Post a link or admit you're making it up.

So that's a no, you're not familiar with local standards. How about the term 'offer in compromise'? Both are used by the IRS. With the IRS using Local Standards to help determine one's ability to pay taxes. Local standards are estimates of housing, transportation, etc expenses used to help determine an individuals ability to pay taxes. And they vary wildly between locations.

If I post a link verifying both, will you acknowledge that the IRS does in fact take location and housing expenses into account when assessing tax debt? Or will you ignore it regardless? If the latter, then there's not much point is posting the link. If the former, then I'd be happy to.

Your post 145:

So your income is irrelevant to the rebate? How then would you not be taxed on the first $23,000 of your yearly income? And what if the cost of living is higher in one area than it is in another. The IRS totally takes local cost of living into account.

But you have not shown the "IRS totally takes local cost of living into account." That is true ONLY in regards to negotiations on back taxes repayment schedules. That is a so different from what you first stated as to be a lie.

Yeah...I saw that. Skylar is clueless as it pertains to the IRS. An example of one of those folks that likely pays nothing in taxes but complains that others don't pay enough.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont agree with it.

You've never heard of 'Local Standards' in regard to determining tax liability for back taxes?

Post a link or admit you're making it up.

So that's a no, you're not familiar with local standards. How about the term 'offer in compromise'? Both are used by the IRS. With the IRS using Local Standards to help determine one's ability to pay taxes. Local standards are estimates of housing, transportation, etc expenses used to help determine an individuals ability to pay taxes. And they vary wildly between locations.

If I post a link verifying both, will you acknowledge that the IRS does in fact take location and housing expenses into account when assessing tax debt? Or will you ignore it regardless? If the latter, then there's not much point is posting the link. If the former, then I'd be happy to.

Your post 145:

So your income is irrelevant to the rebate? How then would you not be taxed on the first $23,000 of your yearly income? And what if the cost of living is higher in one area than it is in another. The IRS totally takes local cost of living into account.

But you have not shown the "IRS totally takes local cost of living into account." That is true ONLY in regards to negotiations on back taxes repayment schedules. That is a so different from what you first stated as to be a lie.

Then if you agree that as far as back taxes are concerned, the IRS takes location and the ability to pay into account?

If so, then what are we disagreeing about?

Your statement that the IRS totally takes location into account was so misleading as to be a lie.

 

[Jarhead]

I dont agree with it.

You've never heard of 'Local Standards' in regard to determining tax liability for back taxes?

Post a link or admit you're making it up.

So that's a no, you're not familiar with local standards. How about the term 'offer in compromise'? Both are used by the IRS. With the IRS using Local Standards to help determine one's ability to pay taxes. Local standards are estimates of housing, transportation, etc expenses used to help determine an individuals ability to pay taxes. And they vary wildly between locations.

If I post a link verifying both, will you acknowledge that the IRS does in fact take location and housing expenses into account when assessing tax debt? Or will you ignore it regardless? If the latter, then there's not much point is posting the link. If the former, then I'd be happy to.

Your post 145:

So your income is irrelevant to the rebate? How then would you not be taxed on the first $23,000 of your yearly income? And what if the cost of living is higher in one area than it is in another. The IRS totally takes local cost of living into account.

But you have not shown the "IRS totally takes local cost of living into account." That is true ONLY in regards to negotiations on back taxes repayment schedules. That is a so different from what you first stated as to be a lie.

Then if you agree that as far as back taxes are concerned, the IRS takes location and the ability to pay into account?

If so, then what are we disagreeing about?

Because the IRS does not take it into account as it pertains to tax returns........just as it pertains to collecting those that are in arrears with their taxes and thus likely to NOT be able to pay what they are supposed to pay....so the IRS makes it easier for them.

LMAO....you are pathetic.

 

[hortysir]

So we'd have to report *every* fucking purchase to the government throughout the year in order to get our refund?

Nope. The Fair Tax gives you a set rebate every month, dependent only on the number of people in your household. It has nothing to do with how much you spent.

And everyone gets the same amount. It is not dependent on income. So a poor person gets the same rebate as a rich person.

And everyone pays their taxes. Drug dealers, prostitutes, illegals, cash workers all pay taxes.

actually, a consumption tax would make exactly that happen...unless they bought on the black market......but there is no hiding of income. Does not matter if you declare income or not. You buy something? You pay 23% tax on it.
Yes, it will increase the issues with black markets.......but that is something that can be tackled with the money we save by eliminating the IRS.

The problem with that, until we run them off of the Hill, is Lobbyists seeking exemptions. Be it band aids, aspirin, kotex, juice.....whatever. Congress would be flooded with special requests

 

[hortysir]

I said that all he did was suggest we abolish the IRS and institute a flatter and fairer tax code.

And you insisted I was wrong in my conclusion that such a tax code would cost the rich less and the middle class and poor more. Yet when I ask you to demonstrate this using Cruz's tax proposal....

......I get excuses. You clearly don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

But he did not say what the flat tax should be...

How then could I be wrong in my assessment....if he has said what the flat tax should be? Its remarkably simple: either you have the numbers to back up the claim that I'm wrong. Or you don't. And as your dodging and excuses demonstrate, you don't.

And of course, you're wrong. Cruz has gotten very specific. Here's the flat tax overhaul that Cruz co-sponsored.

S.122 - 113th Congress 2013-2014 Fair Tax Act of 2013 Congress.gov Library of Congress

Now you don't have to pull numbers out of your ass anymore. So demonstrate to us using Cruz's proposal that I'm wrong. Or....you could just keep giving us more excuses.

So without knowing what the flat tax is, you can not simply assume it will favor the rich.

Without knowing the flat tax is, you cannot simply assume I'm wrong. See how that works?

So as I said....you made a comment that is impossible to make without knowing the rate.

Actually, no. You said I was wrong in my assessment. That's starkly different than 'a comment that is impossible to make without knowing the rate'.

If I'm wrong, then show me. Don't tell me. Not from numbers you've pulled out of your ass. But from Cruz's own flat tax proposal, submitted in the Senate, of which he was a co-sponsor.

And if you can't possibly back up your claim, you'll give us more excuses why you can't. Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.

Bullshit. I told you that you can not make that assumption without knowing what the rate was.

Listen child...I am done with you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I feel silly even corresponding with you. Its like I am trying to debate a 5 year old.......
I kind of pity you.

Cya sparky.

Laughing....I handed you Cruz's tax numbers from the very bill he cosponsored, with exacting specifics on what he proposed and why, completely with tax rates summaries, exemptions, the works. And you still can't possibly back up your claims that I was wrong.

If you spent half the time actually backing up your claims as you did whining about me, your posts might have actually amounted to something.

If you ever need another lesson on why the flat tax isn't a particularly good idea for most Americans, I'll be happy to provide it to you. As you're not very good at this.

Past.....the bill you keep referencing is from 113 Congress. We're in 114 now

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So what is your solution for collecting taxes if you abolish the IRS?

None. That's the point.

The Federal Government still has tariffs and its other methods of pre-1913 income. It did just fine before the 16th Amendment.

So whatever worked over 100 years ago would work just fine today.....I think you would need to do some serious cutting, like say 2/3rd of all federal government in order to accommodate a population that was under 100,000,000 at the time.

Why don't you, and Cruz, start there and work backwards. This cowboy eeee-ha shit sounds good in pixels but takes some serious economic study and not more half-assed rightwing banshee cries.

Here's a starting point: DEFENSE. Just take a whack at that, stop intervening in foreign affairs and we might just get there.

 

[WinterBorn]

So we'd have to report *every* fucking purchase to the government throughout the year in order to get our refund?

Nope. The Fair Tax gives you a set rebate every month, dependent only on the number of people in your household. It has nothing to do with how much you spent.

And everyone gets the same amount. It is not dependent on income. So a poor person gets the same rebate as a rich person.

And everyone pays their taxes. Drug dealers, prostitutes, illegals, cash workers all pay taxes.

actually, a consumption tax would make exactly that happen...unless they bought on the black market......but there is no hiding of income. Does not matter if you declare income or not. You buy something? You pay 23% tax on it.
Yes, it will increase the issues with black markets.......but that is something that can be tackled with the money we save by eliminating the IRS.

The problem with that, until we run them off of the Hill, is Lobbyists seeking exemptions. Be it band aids, aspirin, kotex, juice.....whatever. Congress would be flooded with special requests

It is a staright consumption tax. No exemptions on any new goods and services. That will make lobbyists angry. I can't think of a reason why that should bother anyone.

 

[peach174]

I said that all he did was suggest we abolish the IRS and institute a flatter and fairer tax code.

And you insisted I was wrong in my conclusion that such a tax code would cost the rich less and the middle class and poor more. Yet when I ask you to demonstrate this using Cruz's tax proposal....

......I get excuses. You clearly don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

But he did not say what the flat tax should be...

How then could I be wrong in my assessment....if he has said what the flat tax should be? Its remarkably simple: either you have the numbers to back up the claim that I'm wrong. Or you don't. And as your dodging and excuses demonstrate, you don't.

And of course, you're wrong. Cruz has gotten very specific. Here's the flat tax overhaul that Cruz co-sponsored.

S.122 - 113th Congress 2013-2014 Fair Tax Act of 2013 Congress.gov Library of Congress

Now you don't have to pull numbers out of your ass anymore. So demonstrate to us using Cruz's proposal that I'm wrong. Or....you could just keep giving us more excuses.

So without knowing what the flat tax is, you can not simply assume it will favor the rich.

Without knowing the flat tax is, you cannot simply assume I'm wrong. See how that works?

So as I said....you made a comment that is impossible to make without knowing the rate.

Actually, no. You said I was wrong in my assessment. That's starkly different than 'a comment that is impossible to make without knowing the rate'.

If I'm wrong, then show me. Don't tell me. Not from numbers you've pulled out of your ass. But from Cruz's own flat tax proposal, submitted in the Senate, of which he was a co-sponsor.

And if you can't possibly back up your claim, you'll give us more excuses why you can't. Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.

Bullshit. I told you that you can not make that assumption without knowing what the rate was.

Listen child...I am done with you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I feel silly even corresponding with you. Its like I am trying to debate a 5 year old.......
I kind of pity you.

Cya sparky.

Laughing....I handed you Cruz's tax numbers from the very bill he cosponsored, with exacting specifics on what he proposed and why, completely with tax rates summaries, exemptions, the works. And you still can't possibly back up your claims that I was wrong.

If you spent half the time actually backing up your claims as you did whining about me, your posts might have actually amounted to something.

If you ever need another lesson on why the flat tax isn't a particularly good idea for most Americans, I'll be happy to provide it to you. As you're not very good at this.

Past.....the bill you keep referencing is from 113 Congress. We're in 114 now

What has that got to do with anything?
There are a bunch of bills from past years that finally get passed in the new Congress.
It is done in both parties some have been 2 or more years old before they can get passed.
The bills that did not get voted on last year in the Senate will be voted on with the new Congress.

 

[hortysir]

I said that all he did was suggest we abolish the IRS and institute a flatter and fairer tax code.

And you insisted I was wrong in my conclusion that such a tax code would cost the rich less and the middle class and poor more. Yet when I ask you to demonstrate this using Cruz's tax proposal....

......I get excuses. You clearly don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

But he did not say what the flat tax should be...

How then could I be wrong in my assessment....if he has said what the flat tax should be? Its remarkably simple: either you have the numbers to back up the claim that I'm wrong. Or you don't. And as your dodging and excuses demonstrate, you don't.

And of course, you're wrong. Cruz has gotten very specific. Here's the flat tax overhaul that Cruz co-sponsored.

S.122 - 113th Congress 2013-2014 Fair Tax Act of 2013 Congress.gov Library of Congress

Now you don't have to pull numbers out of your ass anymore. So demonstrate to us using Cruz's proposal that I'm wrong. Or....you could just keep giving us more excuses.

So without knowing what the flat tax is, you can not simply assume it will favor the rich.

Without knowing the flat tax is, you cannot simply assume I'm wrong. See how that works?

So as I said....you made a comment that is impossible to make without knowing the rate.

Actually, no. You said I was wrong in my assessment. That's starkly different than 'a comment that is impossible to make without knowing the rate'.

If I'm wrong, then show me. Don't tell me. Not from numbers you've pulled out of your ass. But from Cruz's own flat tax proposal, submitted in the Senate, of which he was a co-sponsor.

And if you can't possibly back up your claim, you'll give us more excuses why you can't. Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.

Bullshit. I told you that you can not make that assumption without knowing what the rate was.

Listen child...I am done with you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I feel silly even corresponding with you. Its like I am trying to debate a 5 year old.......
I kind of pity you.

Cya sparky.

Laughing....I handed you Cruz's tax numbers from the very bill he cosponsored, with exacting specifics on what he proposed and why, completely with tax rates summaries, exemptions, the works. And you still can't possibly back up your claims that I was wrong.

If you spent half the time actually backing up your claims as you did whining about me, your posts might have actually amounted to something.

If you ever need another lesson on why the flat tax isn't a particularly good idea for most Americans, I'll be happy to provide it to you. As you're not very good at this.

Past.....the bill you keep referencing is from 113 Congress. We're in 114 now

What has that got to do with anything?
There are a bunch of bills from past years that finally get passed in the new Congress.
It is done in both parties some have been 2 or more years old before they can get passed.
The bills that did not get voted on last year in the Senate will be voted on with the new Congress.

IF they're not in Harry's trash can

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So what is your solution for collecting taxes if you abolish the IRS?

None. That's the point.

The Federal Government still has tariffs and its other methods of pre-1913 income. It did just fine before the 16th Amendment.

So whatever worked over 100 years ago would work just fine today.....I think you would need to do some serious cutting, like say 2/3rd of all federal government in order to accommodate a population that was under 100,000,000 at the time.

Let's name things that worked 100 years ago that still work today:

Lightbulbs. Cars. Propeller driven aircraft. Radio. Firearms.

More abstract (government) things: Libraries, Jury System, separation of powers, freedom of the press, freedom of political speech, freedom of religion, freedom from quartering troops in your home...

Ok I think we established that the "100 years ago" line is null and void.

Yes, we'd have to cut out of 2/3 of the government. That's the point.

 

[Stephanie]

So what is your solution for collecting taxes if you abolish the IRS?

None. That's the point.

The Federal Government still has tariffs and its other methods of pre-1913 income. It did just fine before the 16th Amendment.

So whatever worked over 100 years ago would work just fine today.....I think you would need to do some serious cutting, like say 2/3rd of all federal government in order to accommodate a population that was under 100,000,000 at the time.

Let's name things that worked 100 years ago that still work today:

Lightbulbs. Cars. Propeller driven aircraft. Radio. Firearms.

More abstract (government) things: Libraries, Jury System, separation of powers, freedom of the press, freedom of political speech, freedom of religion, freedom from quartering troops in your home...

Ok I think we established that the "100 years ago" line is null and void.

Yes, we'd have to cut out of 2/3 of the government. That's the point.

You can't that through some of the peoples heads. And they are becoming a bloated, overbearing MONSTER

 

[Jarhead]

So we'd have to report *every* fucking purchase to the government throughout the year in order to get our refund?

Nope. The Fair Tax gives you a set rebate every month, dependent only on the number of people in your household. It has nothing to do with how much you spent.

And everyone gets the same amount. It is not dependent on income. So a poor person gets the same rebate as a rich person.

And everyone pays their taxes. Drug dealers, prostitutes, illegals, cash workers all pay taxes.

actually, a consumption tax would make exactly that happen...unless they bought on the black market......but there is no hiding of income. Does not matter if you declare income or not. You buy something? You pay 23% tax on it.
Yes, it will increase the issues with black markets.......but that is something that can be tackled with the money we save by eliminating the IRS.

The problem with that, until we run them off of the Hill, is Lobbyists seeking exemptions. Be it band aids, aspirin, kotex, juice.....whatever. Congress would be flooded with special requests

It is a staright consumption tax. No exemptions on any new goods and services. That will make lobbyists angry. I can't think of a reason why that should bother anyone.

I agree.