End income tax

[TNHarley]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

What will make up the lost revenue?

consumption tax. Maybe around 15% or so?

 

[TNHarley]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

Why don't we just disband government? no taxes, no elections, no complicated laws - it will be all so simple and awesome maaaan, now pass that bong down!

no thanks

 

[TNHarley]

All these "alternate" tax proposals are usually shell games that end lowering the wealthys tax payments .

Do you understand what a consumption tax is?

 

[TNHarley]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

Who said anything about that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't mind the consumption tax I just do not like the Fair Tax plan.
I think it's ridiculous to charge a tax then give people money back and that's exactly what the Fair Tax prebate does

Just charge a lower rate and get rid of all the expense and red tape of giving refunds

 

[indago]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

This has all been discussed many times before:

BEFORE 1

BEFORE 2

BEFORE 3

 

[Skull Pilot]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

This has all been discussed many times before:

BEFORE 1

BEFORE 2

BEFORE 3

and all that time you took to find those threads and post the links you could have done something else

 

[indago]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

This has all been discussed many times before:

BEFORE 1

BEFORE 2

BEFORE 3

and all that time you took to find those threads and post the links you could have done something else

Took about 15 minutes...

And as far as getting rid of IRS, ain't gonna happen. Maybe a name change, but there will always be a revenue collecting system.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

This has all been discussed many times before:

BEFORE 1

BEFORE 2

BEFORE 3

and all that time you took to find those threads and post the links you could have done something else

Took about 15 minutes...

And as far as getting rid of IRS, ain't gonna happen. Maybe a name change, but there will always be a revenue collecting system.

It's not the existence of a revenue collection agency that is the problem it is the size and scope of that agency

 

[indago]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

This has all been discussed many times before:

BEFORE 1

BEFORE 2

BEFORE 3

and all that time you took to find those threads and post the links you could have done something else

Took about 15 minutes...

And as far as getting rid of IRS, ain't gonna happen. Maybe a name change, but there will always be a revenue collecting system.

It's not the existence of a revenue collection agency that is the problem it is the size and scope of that agency

New Gestapo?


Journalist Erica Ritz wrote for The Blaze 8 July 2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Paul LePage of Maine is making news for allegedly referring to the IRS as the “new Gestapo” Saturday, after blasting the president’s overhaul of our health care system. ..."Now that Congress can use the taxation power of the federal government to compel behavior or lack thereof, what’s next? ...This decision has made America less free. ‘We The People’ have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo – the I.R.S."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

article

This is not a new phenomenon. Congressman George Hansen, in a speech in the Congress, printed in the Congressional Record, 21 February 1979, noted: "The IRS long ago seems to have lost its sense of mission as a tax-collection agency and with all the grace of the hobnailed gestapo has embarked on a course of implementing and enforcing social reform with the view that Americans are basically dishonest, uncharitable, bigoted, criminal-minded and even violent to deal with. ...For years we have become progressively inured to the routine contempt the IRS has chronically demonstrated for accepted civilized standards of fairness, something which has its roots in the regrettable presumption that in tax matters the citizen is guilty until proven innocent, an innocence that has to be proven at the expense of the taxpayer, no matter how groundless or frivolous the charges. ...All totalitarian governments have at least one agency which, in the name of protecting the regime, claims the right of total control of the citizens. We can do without an American Gestapo or KGB."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The lefties regularly have a problem with spending on things specifically in the Constitution but have no problem with spending on things that aren't there. I can point to the Article, Section, and Clause that permits military spending as a delegated power. I have yet to have one lefty show me the word food stamps, WIC, government housing, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

That clause literally says "general welfare" .

That clause doesn't say any of the words you lefties claim are in the Constitution. General welfare doesn't mean social welfare.

General welfare is public welfare, or social welfare.

Another far left debunked narrative being run.

general welfare is in the Preamble:

Promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

Here is a lank for the far left drone here that may help them:

The Constitution for Kids (Kindergarten - 3rd Grade) - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Promoting the general welfare doesn't mean handing someone something they're unwilling to earn. It means keeping the government out of the way so they can better themselves.

If We Have to Do It on Our Own, So Must the Brats of the Rich

Inheritance and trustfunds are also unearned. With all your selfish whining about taxes, you illogically refuse to admit that by confiscating inheritance from those freeloaders, you will never have to pay any income taxes.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

You conservatives literally have no idea how the world works. Not a goddamn clue.

Middle class conservatives are like monkeys at the zoo eating each others poop.

Why does the far left hate unions?

Politics Is a Spitball Fight at a Prep School

Because they are unconscious agents of the Far Right snobs they went to sheltered elitist schools with. They give their charade away with their anti-bluecollar slurs about "deplorables" and "clingers," but people are too desperate to take a side to believe that both sides represent an unAmerican aristocracy.

 

[TNHarley]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What ******* loopholes?

You conservatives literally have no idea how the world works. Not a goddamn clue.

Middle class conservatives are like monkeys at the zoo eating each others poop.

Why does the far left hate unions?

Politics Is a Spitball Fight at a Prep School

Because they are unconscious agents of the Far Right snobs they went to sheltered elitist schools with. They give their charade away with their anti-bluecollar slurs about "deplorables" and "clingers," but people are too desperate to take a side to believe that both sides represent an unAmerican aristocracy.

Were you raised in the slums or something?

 

[Flash]

We need to abolish both the income tax and the corporate tax.

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the minimal to provide for defense and few other necessary national needs. Then we need to figure out how to fund it where everybody pays for it, not just the successful.

 

[danielpalos]

We need to abolish both the income tax and the corporate tax.

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the minimal to provide for defense and few other necessary national needs. Then we need to figure out how to fund it where everybody pays for it, not just the successful.

let's start with ending our, War on Drugs, first.

 

[WillReadmore]

Mark my words...

If we ever do away with the income tax America will look like central America or south Asia within 50 years.

Many states have done away with their income tax, do they look like South America?

Silly far left drone!

We look like South America, because you far left drones want an open border!

Another failed post!

I live in such a state.

Having no income tax is a serious problem. It means that anything those of us who can pay want to do in the way of improving schools, transportation, the homeless situation, etc., have no adequate way to raise revenue other than to tax people who rent, retirees who managed to own their home, etc.

It's a really crappy idea at the state level.

Plus, I don't see anything on this thread from the anti-tax folks that shows what the impact would be and how we would sustain that.

Is it what you say or is it that what would replace an income tax (use tax, national sales tax, etc.) would mean the 50% that pay no income tax yet benefit from living here would actually have to pay their fair share?

I don't accept that as a real question.

For example, it ignores what "fair share" even means.

Also, it ignores what it means to tax those who have no income above the poverty level.

And, it ignores the spiral we get into when we fail to create adequate schools, health care systems, living wages, etc.

Driving retirees out of their homes by using property tax isn't some sort of civil good. Leveling property tax raises rents when we already have a serious problem with homelessness.

And, let's remember that it is the wealthy who design our systems. Once again, I'll point out that the poor of America would NEVER have considered spending trillions of dollars killing people in the ME. They would be significantly less interested in freeways. The would be more interested in community health care (which we've dumped) rather than BigPharma and hugely expensive procedures. Those living in low income areas are much more likely to be getting water that kills their kids brains. Would those people appreciate a solution to that more than to the solution of killing those in the ME, or super freeways, etc?

A lot of what we do is design systems for the wealthy and then moan when we can't wring more dollars out of the poor to pay for it.


What I'm saying is that moving to taxes based on property, sales, etc. is destructive.

You ignore it because you know answering destroys your entire argument.

What you propose is those that contribute and mean something to society pay more while the dregs of society and those that only take from it continue to do so.

The only thought of the poor in America is how they can be handed something else they didn't earn by those that keep society going.

You keep saying we wring more dollar out the poor to pay for it. If they're poor, they don't have anything. That's why constantly try to wring something out of those that earned it because many of them don't have the ability or desire to do for themselves. If they did, they would.

I did NOT ignore your question. I'm stating that it isn't a valid question, backed by why.

Your direction of "us v the poor" just does more to perpetuate poverty. We need to pull out those kids and make them full partners in our economy.

Your last paragraph needs to be reworked. I'm guessing you're trying to dodge the push by the alt-right and the rest to justify being harsher toward those below the poverty line. But, that makes NO sense - morally or economically.

 

[Conservative65]

Many states have done away with their income tax, do they look like South America?

Silly far left drone!

We look like South America, because you far left drones want an open border!

Another failed post!

I live in such a state.

Having no income tax is a serious problem. It means that anything those of us who can pay want to do in the way of improving schools, transportation, the homeless situation, etc., have no adequate way to raise revenue other than to tax people who rent, retirees who managed to own their home, etc.

It's a really crappy idea at the state level.

Plus, I don't see anything on this thread from the anti-tax folks that shows what the impact would be and how we would sustain that.

Is it what you say or is it that what would replace an income tax (use tax, national sales tax, etc.) would mean the 50% that pay no income tax yet benefit from living here would actually have to pay their fair share?

I don't accept that as a real question.

For example, it ignores what "fair share" even means.

Also, it ignores what it means to tax those who have no income above the poverty level.

And, it ignores the spiral we get into when we fail to create adequate schools, health care systems, living wages, etc.

Driving retirees out of their homes by using property tax isn't some sort of civil good. Leveling property tax raises rents when we already have a serious problem with homelessness.

And, let's remember that it is the wealthy who design our systems. Once again, I'll point out that the poor of America would NEVER have considered spending trillions of dollars killing people in the ME. They would be significantly less interested in freeways. The would be more interested in community health care (which we've dumped) rather than BigPharma and hugely expensive procedures. Those living in low income areas are much more likely to be getting water that kills their kids brains. Would those people appreciate a solution to that more than to the solution of killing those in the ME, or super freeways, etc?

A lot of what we do is design systems for the wealthy and then moan when we can't wring more dollars out of the poor to pay for it.


What I'm saying is that moving to taxes based on property, sales, etc. is destructive.

You ignore it because you know answering destroys your entire argument.

What you propose is those that contribute and mean something to society pay more while the dregs of society and those that only take from it continue to do so.

The only thought of the poor in America is how they can be handed something else they didn't earn by those that keep society going.

You keep saying we wring more dollar out the poor to pay for it. If they're poor, they don't have anything. That's why constantly try to wring something out of those that earned it because many of them don't have the ability or desire to do for themselves. If they did, they would.

I did NOT ignore your question. I'm stating that it isn't a valid question, backed by why.

Your direction of "us v the poor" just does more to perpetuate poverty. We need to pull out those kids and make them full partners in our economy.

Your last paragraph needs to be reworked. I'm guessing you're trying to dodge the push by the alt-right and the rest to justify being harsher toward those below the poverty line. But, that makes NO sense - morally or economically.

Because you don't want the answer it doesn't make it invalid. Because you don't like what the answer would be doesn't make it invalid.

Since I provide for myself and my family, I can't perpetuate property. The only ones that perpetuate it are those that live in it and do nothing to get out of it.

How about the parents of those kids pull their own children out and become full partners in the economy instead of expecting someone else to do it for them? Your answer to everything is have those already pulling their own way to pull others unwilling to pull themselves.

Are you saying that expecting people to provide for themselves what they should be providing for themselves being harsh? I expect myself to do that very thing. Am I being too harsh on myself?

To use the words of other bleeding heart Liberal such as yourself, don't push your morals on me. You scream and yell if you think someone that believe like me talks about pushing morals yet you do it yourself and justify how it's different. I don't owe a poor person anything economically or morally.

 

[Flash]

We need to abolish both the income tax and the corporate tax.

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the minimal to provide for defense and few other necessary national needs. Then we need to figure out how to fund it where everybody pays for it, not just the successful.

let's start with ending our, War on Drugs, first.

We need to end a lot of things. Welfare (both domestic and foreign), subsidies, bailouts and entitlements.

We need to stop fighting other people's wars for them. We need to stop Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If we were to dismantle this filthy ass Federal government down to only the basic and necessary needs then we wouldn't need the income tax or the corporate tax. Our economy would boom then.

 

[WillReadmore]

We need to abolish both the income tax and the corporate tax.

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the minimal to provide for defense and few other necessary national needs. Then we need to figure out how to fund it where everybody pays for it, not just the successful.

let's start with ending our, War on Drugs, first.

We need to end a lot of things. Welfare (both domestic and foreign), subsidies, bailouts and entitlements.

We need to stop fighting other people's wars for them. We need to stop Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If we were to dismantle this filthy ass Federal government down to only the basic and necessary needs then we wouldn't need the income tax or the corporate tax. Our economy would boom then.

We did that. Other nations did that, too. All you have to do is study some history.

The problem is that we did not like it - for very good reason.

 

[Flash]

[t
We did that. Other nations did that, too. All you have to do is study some history.

The problem is that we did not like it - for very good reason.

We need a whole lot less government than we have now. We don't need a welfare system and we don't need to be the world's policeman. There is a role for government but we are far beyond what is necessary to ensure liberty and prosperity.

We don't need some government asshole, elected by special interest groups, telling us how to run our lives.

We don't need greedy welfare queens using the democratic process to steal money from others.