No IRS? Really? How?

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/04/pf/...b_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork

The cry has been around for decades. Especially from the conservatives and their candidates. The problem is - no one can say how the government would ever be able to collect the taxes owed or enforce any laws passed.
Check the 'plans' of any candidate who claims their tax plan includes doing away with the IRS. In short, they have no plan to really accomplish that. They are just blowing smoke up the asses of their supporters - pandering, if you will.
If you support the no more IRS idea - tell us how that can be done.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/04/pf/...b_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork

The cry has been around for decades. Especially from the conservatives and their candidates. The problem is - no one can say how the government would ever be able to collect the taxes owed or enforce any laws passed.
Check the 'plans' of any candidate who claims their tax plan includes doing away with the IRS. In short, they have no plan to really accomplish that. They are just blowing smoke up the asses of their supporters - pandering, if you will.
If you support the no more IRS idea - tell us how that can be done.

It's actually quite easy. For example, if you wanted progressive taxation, your employer can collect 2% on your first 10K, 4% on your next 30k, 6% on your next 50k, 8% on your next 80k and so on. No deductions. No filing.

I've advocated collecting no taxes on those that make minimum wage. The government needn't intervene and "F" up the labor market. They can just allow these less off folks to keep what they earn.

The private sector already collects most of the tax revenue anyway.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,560
14,573
1
Ummm Knoxxy..,what about corporate taxes?

What about capital gain and dividend income earned outside of your employer?

Who is going to audit the employer to confirm they are withholding and remitting the correct amount?

What about rental income?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,015
1,913
1
It's actually quite easy. For example, if you wanted progressive taxation, your employer can collect 2% on your first 10K, 4% on your next 30k, 6% on your next 50k, 8% on your next 80k and so on. No deductions. No filing.

I've advocated collecting no taxes on those that make minimum wage. The government needn't intervene and "F" up the labor market. They can just allow these less off folks to keep what they earn.

The private sector already collects most of the tax revenue anyway.

"I've advocated collecting no taxes on those that make minimum wage."

Knox is a damn liberal!!!
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
"I've advocated collecting no taxes on those that make minimum wage."

Knox is a damn liberal!!!

It only makes sense. Instead of the stupid government making rules about how others should pay someone, they ought to control what they can to help the little guy.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
Ummm Knoxxy..,what about corporate taxes?

What about capital gain and dividend income earned outside of your employer?

Who is going to audit the employer to confirm they are withholding and remitting the correct amount?

What about rental income?

Same type of thing.

Who audits employers today? The IRS? Well then keep a couple auditors and FIRE the rest of the government welfare recipients that work for the IRS.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
Same type of thing.

Who audits employers today? The IRS? Well then keep a couple auditors and FIRE the rest of the government welfare recipients that work for the IRS.

You're having a real problem with reality. No matter what you do; flat tax, progressive..... there has to be a mechanism for collection, audit, enforcement. This is the same reason all the candidates who have ever made the stupid comment 'eliminate the IRS' has never presented a realistic plan to do so.
Bumper sticker slogans don't make policy or law.
Every state and locality has someone/agency that is responsible for collecting taxes; real estate, sales, inheritance, business, income, disability..... These are the necessary evils of having a government and organized society. You'll even find them in the Bible for pitty-sake.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,560
14,573
1
Same type of thing.

Who audits employers today? The IRS? Well then keep a couple auditors and FIRE the rest of the government welfare recipients that work for the IRS.

A couple of auditors can handle tax collection, audit, and enforcement for every business in the United States?

You also didn't answer how tax on non W-2 income would be collected. Cap gains, dividends, rental income?

Sounds like you really put a lot of thought into this. :)
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
Elimination of the US Income Tax would require a Constitutional amendment (16th). And that would take a long time. Incremental changes have a better chance - re-write the Tax Code. An agency to collect & enforce would still be needed. These minor details do require thought and understanding - lacking usually in those making the proclamations.
 

Proudlion1

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2004
12,030
846
1
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/03/flat-tax-is-the-way-of-the-future

A good read on the flat tax alternative. This thread is hilarious given that Libs are questioning how to implement it given their Dem Party couldn't manage the development and launch of the healthcare.gov website. Perhaps they've learned a lesson?

Implementing the flat tax would eliminate a lot of expense......expensive, inefficient workers, tax accountants, etc.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,560
14,573
1
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/03/flat-tax-is-the-way-of-the-future

A good read on the flat tax alternative. This thread is hilarious given that Libs are questioning how to implement it given their Dem Party couldn't manage the development and launch of the healthcare.gov website. Perhaps they've learned a lesson?

Implementing the flat tax would eliminate a lot of expense......expensive, inefficient workers, tax accountants, etc.

It would also be a massive tax cut for the Uber wealthy during a time when one of society's biggest problems is record wealth inequality.

Horrible idea.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
A couple of auditors can handle tax collection, audit, and enforcement for every business in the United States?

You also didn't answer how tax on non W-2 income would be collected. Cap gains, dividends, rental income?

Sounds like you really put a lot of thought into this. :)

I put as much thought into this as you do when you parrot nonsensical talking points like "capitalism is failing, and we need more socialism." Hell, I may have put more thought into it.........

Conceptually, what I am suggesting is quite easy. You are just being intransigent. One can extend the same concept to non W-2 income, or even handle it after that fact as we do today. The IRS will still be greatly downsized.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
It would also be a massive tax cut for the Uber wealthy during a time when one of society's biggest problems is record wealth inequality.

Horrible idea.

Punitive taxation is a horrible idea and immoral as well. It promotes the insidious human emotions of envy and jealousy.
 

Proudlion1

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2004
12,030
846
1
It would also be a massive tax cut for the Uber wealthy during a time when one of society's biggest problems is record wealth inequality.

Horrible idea.

Ha! And, it's gotten worse during Obama's terms. Sheesh! Obama's been a terrible failure. He's failed the poor, failed the blacks, failed our allies, etc. LOL!
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
You're having a real problem with reality. No matter what you do; flat tax, progressive..... there has to be a mechanism for collection, audit, enforcement. This is the same reason all the candidates who have ever made the stupid comment 'eliminate the IRS' has never presented a realistic plan to do so.
Bumper sticker slogans don't make policy or law.
Every state and locality has someone/agency that is responsible for collecting taxes; real estate, sales, inheritance, business, income, disability..... These are the necessary evils of having a government and organized society. You'll even find them in the Bible for pitty-sake.

Spoken like a true governmentphile..... I'd take simplification and reduction as well as elimination, but the leftwingers will have a reason for that too.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,560
14,573
1
I put as much thought into this as you do when you parrot nonsensical talking points like "capitalism is failing, and we need more socialism." Hell, I may have put more thought into it.........

Conceptually, what I am suggesting is quite easy. You are just being intransigent. One can extend the same concept to non W-2 income, or even handle it after that fact as we do today. The IRS will still be greatly downsized.

You don't seem to even realize that the IRS handles corporate tax returns.

Knoxxy this is why I'm hesitant to get sucked into the Knoxxy vortex. You have absolutely no knowledge of this topic and yet you keep throwing out one ridiculous post after another.

You won't stop until i stop responding to you. This thread is a perfect example of why you belong at the little kids table.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
You don't seem to even realize that the IRS handles corporate tax returns.

Knoxxy this is why I'm hesitant to get sucked into the Knoxxy vortex. You have absolutely no knowledge of this topic and yet you keep throwing out one ridiculous post after another.

You won't stop until i stop responding to you. This thread is a perfect example of why you belong at the little kids table.

Now it's corporate taxes...... You are a rolling stone... And it's clownish to ask a question then to wonder why one responds. Christ are you stupid.

Here, let's end it with "capitalism is failing; we need more socialism". And I will add that we need a bigger IRS so that the government can tax the rich more........

And you wonder why so many call you the board jester...?
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,399
21,093
1
You don't seem to even realize that the IRS handles corporate tax returns.

Knoxxy this is why I'm hesitant to get sucked into the Knoxxy vortex. You have absolutely no knowledge of this topic and yet you keep throwing out one ridiculous post after another.

You won't stop until i stop responding to you. This thread is a perfect example of why you belong at the little kids table.
The only reason you need the IRS is because the Democrats complicated the tax code for both business and individuals. Get rid of the Socialist Democrats and undue everything they put in place and problem solved.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
The only reason you need the IRS is because the Democrats complicated the tax code for both business and individuals. Get rid of the Socialist Democrats and undue everything they put in place and problem solved.

NJ will also point out that we need an expanding IRS to prove that individuals purchased health care insurance...

Very necessary.
 

Yanks49

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2001
371
210
1
We can have a 21st Century tax system.
With the Transaction Tax,millions of transaction payments would be collected, and deposited in the US Treasury,each hour without ever being touched by human hands. Every time you would buy something – whether it was a sandwich or a second home – a tiny payment (0.35%) would be collected from you, and from the seller, and transferred directly to the US Treasury over our nation’s electronic banking network.

The Transaction Tax would completely replace income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes and estate taxes. There would be no more tax returns, audits or April 15 deadline. Collecting the tax at the moment of a transaction would be simple and efficient. It would cut out all the opportunities for fraud, corruption and political influence. And it would free up billions of hours and trillions of dollars that we waste on tax compliance.

Check out their website:

http://thetransactiontax.org/
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,015
1,913
1
The only reason you need the IRS is because the Democrats complicated the tax code for both business and individuals. Get rid of the Socialist Democrats and undue everything they put in place and problem solved.

To a large degree that is wrong. R's also complicate the code as they try for every penny they can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jj410

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
We can have a 21st Century tax system.
With the Transaction Tax,millions of transaction payments would be collected, and deposited in the US Treasury,each hour without ever being touched by human hands. Every time you would buy something – whether it was a sandwich or a second home – a tiny payment (0.35%) would be collected from you, and from the seller, and transferred directly to the US Treasury over our nation’s electronic banking network.

The Transaction Tax would completely replace income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes and estate taxes. There would be no more tax returns, audits or April 15 deadline. Collecting the tax at the moment of a transaction would be simple and efficient. It would cut out all the opportunities for fraud, corruption and political influence. And it would free up billions of hours and trillions of dollars that we waste on tax compliance.

Check out their website:

http://thetransactiontax.org/
The website sucks. I'm not going to pay them top read nonsense. If all stock purchases are included then you might have something.Buy a car, pay tran tax, pay the hospital - trans tax, get legal advice, trans tax. Of course strictly 'cash' transaction would never get taxed. The underground economy would boom. How about purchases over the internet? What happens if a store/individual doesn't pay - who enforces?
 

Yanks49

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2001
371
210
1
The website sucks. I'm not going to pay them top read nonsense. If all stock purchases are included then you might have something.Buy a car, pay tran tax, pay the hospital - trans tax, get legal advice, trans tax. Of course strictly 'cash' transaction would never get taxed. The underground economy would boom. How about purchases over the internet? What happens if a store/individual doesn't pay - who enforces?

Actually, there was a site called Automated Payment Transaction Tax that I had originally seen a few years ago that would address any financial transaction that would address what you are talking about. The site linked is NOT the same and I should have looked for the APPT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Payment_Transaction_tax

There is another site that is similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax

As far as your questions, it would seem to me that pretty much anything purchased over the internet is credit card, so that one's pretty easy. The APPT and Tobin plans address "cash" transactions because any time money is deposited in a bank, or where ever, there's a tiny tax. It actually would be low enough that most people wouldn't bother trying to scam the system. As far as businesses not paying, I don't have a problem with auditors (meaning IRS), but they could possibly be state auditors instead of a federal IRS. They are already monitoring businesses.

All I know is the present system isn't working, especially with all the loopholes, so something needs to be done. The tax code is so far gone, it doesn't make sense.
 

jj410

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2014
3,137
423
1
Actually, there was a site called Automated Payment Transaction Tax that I had originally seen a few years ago that would address any financial transaction that would address what you are talking about. The site linked is NOT the same and I should have looked for the APPT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Payment_Transaction_tax

There is another site that is similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax

As far as your questions, it would seem to me that pretty much anything purchased over the internet is credit card, so that one's pretty easy. The APPT and Tobin plans address "cash" transactions because any time money is deposited in a bank, or where ever, there's a tiny tax. It actually would be low enough that most people wouldn't bother trying to scam the system. As far as businesses not paying, I don't have a problem with auditors (meaning IRS), but they could possibly be state auditors instead of a federal IRS. They are already monitoring businesses.

All I know is the present system isn't working, especially with all the loopholes, so something needs to be done. The tax code is so far gone, it doesn't make sense.
Changing the tax code has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing it, you dumb sh$ts. You will always need some enforcement arm, whether its called the IRS or auditors or whatever your midget mind desires. But eliminating it is a good pose for demagogs like Cruz to sell to the suckers.
The tax code is overly complex because loopholes were put there by big business with the assistance of pols of both parties. They will never allow the repubs or anyone else to change it substantially. Every line of the code would be a war financed with millions of lobbyist dollars.The repub pols know it and like the loopholes but they act otherwise to play populist, while scamming the suckers by conflating a flat tax with a simple tax.
The repubs love the orwellian term "fair tax" instead of calling it what it is - a regressive "sales tax" or as a variation, something akin to the European VAT.
Man, you people are terminally stupid.
 
Last edited:

tgar

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 14, 2001
19,123
19,117
1
I put as much thought into this as you do when you parrot nonsensical talking points like "capitalism is failing, and we need more socialism." Hell, I may have put more thought into it.........

Conceptually, what I am suggesting is quite easy. You are just being intransigent. One can extend the same concept to non W-2 income, or even handle it after that fact as we do today. The IRS will still be greatly downsized.

Knox is advocating that by switching the mode for collection a sizable portion of that department can and would be eliminated. I agree with this.

Yes, certain and many entities still need to be audited but there could be a simple plan in place that makes all of this easier. From a filing standpoint, wouldn't it be great for many here to not to have to spend hundreds to thousands every year along with time spent to file?

I am with Knox on this. BTW, last time I checked, this is the USA and while our government hasn't done much but provide health care for all ( which also needs to be improved ) recently, this could get accomplished in relatively short time.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
The tax code is about 2,000 pages. Not the claimed 73,000. The difference is lots of explanation on how to interpret and use it
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,587
34,877
1
Changing the tax code has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing it, you dumb sh$ts. You will always need some enforcement arm, whether its called the IRS or auditors or whatever your midget mind desires. But eliminating it is a good pose for demagogs like Cruz to sell to the suckers.
The tax code is overly complex because loopholes were put there by big business with the assistance of pols of both parties. They will never allow the repubs or anyone else to change it substantially. Every line of the code would be a war financed with millions of lobbyist dollars.The repub pols know it and like the loopholes but they act otherwise to play populist, while scamming the suckers by conflating a flat tax with a simple tax.
The repubs love the orwellian term "fair tax" instead of calling it what it is - a regressive "sales tax" or as a variation, something akin to the European VAT.
Man, you people are terminally stupid.

The more complex the tax code is the bigger the IRS has to be to enforce it. It's an exaggeration to say we could eliminate the IRS but it's not an exaggeration to say that we could substantially reduce it's size.

The 1040 form alone has grown from 63 to 79 numbered rows since Regan was in office. Did corrupt businesses lobby to add lines for refundable child and education credits or for teachers to deduct out of pocket costs? It's not just business lobbying. There's a lot of politics involved.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
The more complex the tax code is the bigger the IRS has to be to enforce it. It's an exaggeration to say we could eliminate the IRS but it's not an exaggeration to say that we could substantially reduce it's size.

The 1040 form alone has grown from 63 to 79 numbered rows since Regan was in office. Did corrupt businesses lobby to add lines for refundable child and education credits or for teachers to deduct out of pocket costs? It's not just business lobbying. There's a lot of politics involved.

Tyhe IRS didn't add anything to the complexity of the Tax Code. Writing the Tax Code is the business of Congress - they have added the complexity they complain about. The IRS only enforces - carries out the provisions of the tacx code written by others.
If you don't like what we have tell your congress critters to change it. After those changes (after hell has frozen over) the IRS or other tax collecting agency will enforce the new code.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,587
34,877
1
Tyhe IRS didn't add anything to the complexity of the Tax Code. Writing the Tax Code is the business of Congress - they have added the complexity they complain about. The IRS only enforces - carries out the provisions of the tacx code written by others.
If you don't like what we have tell your congress critters to change it. After those changes (after hell has frozen over) the IRS or other tax collecting agency will enforce the new code.

Correct. But it's also correct that the tax code does not have to be so complex and that the IRS doesn't have to be so big. And it's not all due to big business lobbying.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,711
5,099
1
Correct. But it's also correct that the tax code does not have to be so complex and that the IRS doesn't have to be so big. And it's not all due to big business lobbying.

Agreed. There have been some very good tax code changes presented over the last couple of decades. All have gone no where. The most recent examples were the Simpson-Bowles and the Ryan plans. They seem to die a horrible 'death by a thousand cuts' each time.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,587
34,877
1
Agreed. There have been some very good tax code changes presented over the last couple of decades. All have gone no where. The most recent examples were the Simpson-Bowles and the Ryan plans. They seem to die a horrible 'death by a thousand cuts' each time.
That's why we need somebody in the whitehouse that can work with congress to pass sensible legislation. Not somebody that forces things through behind closed doors and by using bribes, or just stretches the law by using executive orders.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,015
1,913
1
That's why we need somebody in the White House that can work with Congress to pass sensible legislation. Not somebody that forces things through behind closed doors and by using bribes, or just stretches the law by using executive orders.

I don't see anybody capable or willing among all the Presidential candidates. Of both parties. Why don't you run bdgan?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,587
34,877
1
I don't see anybody capable or willing among all the Presidential candidates. Of both parties. Why don't you run bdgan?

I agree that none of the presidential candidates have the guts or backing to do what's needed. It's just that some are better than others.

I'm not as rich as Trump and I can't be bought. That pretty much rules me out.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,560
14,573
1
That's why we need somebody in the whitehouse that can work with congress to pass sensible legislation. Not somebody that forces things through behind closed doors and by using bribes, or just stretches the law by using executive orders.

Who is that? God? Republicans werent allowed to make deals with Obama and Grover Norquist has forbid them from raising taxes. You know this.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,498
6,529
1
Ummm Knoxxy..,what about corporate taxes? ....

I'll tell you the answer right after you tell me why the income of corporations, the lifeblood of our entire society, should be taxed at all. You do realize, of course, that those taxes are just passed down to the consumer. Corporate taxes are just another stealth tax on us!

There is an answer to all your questions and it's the same one.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,587
34,877
1
Who is that? God? Republicans werent allowed to make deals with Obama and Grover Norquist has forbid them from raising taxes. You know this.

Norquist hasn't been in the news for 5 years. Why do we need to raise taxes anyway? Is that the key to economic growth?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,015
1,913
1
I'll tell you the answer right after you tell me why the income of corporations, the lifeblood of our entire society, should be taxed at all. You do realize, of course, that those taxes are just passed down to the consumer. Corporate taxes are just another stealth tax on us!

There is an answer to all your questions and it's the same one.

Because people have ways of avoiding income taxes and sales taxes and pretty much all kinds of taxes. That's the reality of the world we live in. We can't just stop paying our bills.
 
Last edited:

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,015
1,913
1
I agree that none of the presidential candidates have the guts or backing to do what's needed. It's just that some are better than others.

I'm not as rich as Trump and I can't be bought. That pretty much rules me out.

Who is better than the others?