Another Reason To Abolish The IRS

[syonidv]

If I had my druthers, we would simply abolish all those so-called "services."

No national defense?

Interesting!

We had a national defense without an income tax. Haven't you ever read a history book?

Yes, I have read quite a few history books. And if you had, you would know that every war from the Civil War forward was paid for by an income tax.

Are you planning to defend our country with the Cub Scouts?

A welfare-State can provide for the common Defense with no direct tax on the incomes of real Persons.

As I said, I am okay with the Fair Tax and the elimination of the income tax. As a fiscal conservative, I support taxes on consumption over taxes on production.

But I am not retarded enough to believe a Fair Tax would lead to the elimination of the IRS.

It isn't the IRS which needs to be reformed. It is our tax structure which needs to be reformed. The IRS is just doing what the law of the land tells it to do. The retards are conflating the symptom with the disease.

To be fair, they're conflating two issues that ostensibly have no relationship at all (the IRS's mandate to collect taxes isn't technically a 'symptom' of a specific tax code).

Also (and I say this because I sense you may be an individual who cares about such things): people that actually have to deal with mental retardation in real life take grievous exception to joking about the condition or the casual use of 'retard' as an epithet. The term doesn't offend me personally and it's certainly your prerogative to use it, but just so you know. After all, making the board a little more civil couldn't hurt, and we lead by example.

 

[g5000]

No national defense?

Interesting!

We had a national defense without an income tax. Haven't you ever read a history book?

Yes, I have read quite a few history books. And if you had, you would know that every war from the Civil War forward was paid for by an income tax.

Are you planning to defend our country with the Cub Scouts?

A welfare-State can provide for the common Defense with no direct tax on the incomes of real Persons.

As I said, I am okay with the Fair Tax and the elimination of the income tax. As a fiscal conservative, I support taxes on consumption over taxes on production.

But I am not retarded enough to believe a Fair Tax would lead to the elimination of the IRS.

It isn't the IRS which needs to be reformed. It is our tax structure which needs to be reformed. The IRS is just doing what the law of the land tells it to do. The retards are conflating the symptom with the disease.

To be fair, they're conflating two issues that ostensibly have no relationship at all (the IRS's mandate to collect taxes isn't technically a 'symptom' of a specific tax code).

Also (and I say this because I sense you may be an individual who cares about such things): people that actually have to deal with mental retardation in real life take grievous exception to joking about the condition or the casual use of 'retard' as an epithet. The term doesn't offend me personally and it's certainly your prerogative to use it, but just so you know. After all, making the board a little more civil couldn't hurt, and we lead by example.

I cannot think of any other explanation for the dimwittedness of some of the posters here other than that their mental capabilities are retarded.

I'm bringing back "retard". It is no more harmful than "idiot".

And, yes, I do care about actual mentally handicapped people. More than you will ever know.

As for "civility", it is a ridiculous fantasy which only leads to more incivility when attempted to be forced.

 

[danielpalos]

If I had my druthers, we would simply abolish all those so-called "services."

No national defense?

Interesting!

We had a national defense without an income tax. Haven't you ever read a history book?

Yes, I have read quite a few history books. And if you had, you would know that every war from the Civil War forward was paid for by an income tax.

Are you planning to defend our country with the Cub Scouts?

A welfare-State can provide for the common Defense with no direct tax on the incomes of real Persons.

As I said, I am okay with the Fair Tax and the elimination of the income tax. As a fiscal conservative, I support taxes on consumption over taxes on production.

But I am not retarded enough to believe a Fair Tax would lead to the elimination of the IRS.

It isn't the IRS which needs to be reformed. It is our tax structure which needs to be reformed. The IRS is just doing what the law of the land tells it to do. The retards are conflating the symptom with the disease.

let's end the drug war and blame it on our Commerce Clause.

 

[syonidv]

We had a national defense without an income tax. Haven't you ever read a history book?

Yes, I have read quite a few history books. And if you had, you would know that every war from the Civil War forward was paid for by an income tax.

Are you planning to defend our country with the Cub Scouts?

A welfare-State can provide for the common Defense with no direct tax on the incomes of real Persons.

As I said, I am okay with the Fair Tax and the elimination of the income tax. As a fiscal conservative, I support taxes on consumption over taxes on production.

But I am not retarded enough to believe a Fair Tax would lead to the elimination of the IRS.

It isn't the IRS which needs to be reformed. It is our tax structure which needs to be reformed. The IRS is just doing what the law of the land tells it to do. The retards are conflating the symptom with the disease.

To be fair, they're conflating two issues that ostensibly have no relationship at all (the IRS's mandate to collect taxes isn't technically a 'symptom' of a specific tax code).

Also (and I say this because I sense you may be an individual who cares about such things): people that actually have to deal with mental retardation in real life take grievous exception to joking about the condition or the casual use of 'retard' as an epithet. The term doesn't offend me personally and it's certainly your prerogative to use it, but just so you know. After all, making the board a little more civil couldn't hurt, and we lead by example.

I cannot think of any other explanation for the dimwittedness of some of the posters here other than that their mental capabilities are retarded.

I'm bringing back "retard". It is not more harmful than "idiot".

I can assure you that nobody capable of posting on this message board unassisted meets the clinical standard of mental retardation.

If you must resort to belittling opponents' intellect, "dimwits" is as good a noun as any.

 

[Political Junky]

Perhaps we should install boxes around the cities where folks could donate to the government.

 

[g5000]

No national defense?

Interesting!

We had a national defense without an income tax. Haven't you ever read a history book?

Yes, I have read quite a few history books. And if you had, you would know that every war from the Civil War forward was paid for by an income tax.

Are you planning to defend our country with the Cub Scouts?

A welfare-State can provide for the common Defense with no direct tax on the incomes of real Persons.

As I said, I am okay with the Fair Tax and the elimination of the income tax. As a fiscal conservative, I support taxes on consumption over taxes on production.

But I am not retarded enough to believe a Fair Tax would lead to the elimination of the IRS.

It isn't the IRS which needs to be reformed. It is our tax structure which needs to be reformed. The IRS is just doing what the law of the land tells it to do. The retards are conflating the symptom with the disease.

let's end the drug war and blame it on our Commerce Clause.

I'm okay with ending the war on pot, and I don't even imbibe.

Harder drugs should be banned.

 

[g5000]

Perhaps we should install boxes around the cities where folks could donate to the government.

Please help little Jimmy get a road built to his neighborhood!

 

[syonidv]

Perhaps we should install boxes around the cities where folks could donate to the government.

Believe it or not, there have been serious organized movements by citizens to voluntarily pay extra taxes to the government. I think the number in 2013 was close to $5M in voluntary donations.

I actually like the idea. The problem is that everything goes into a common revenue pool. There's no way to donate money specifically to pay down the federal debt, for instance. Even if there was, the government would simply divert an equal amount of revenue into other programs.

 

[g5000]

Perhaps we should install boxes around the cities where folks could donate to the government.

Believe it or not, there have been serious organized movements by citizens to voluntarily pay extra taxes to the government. I think the number in 2013 was close to $5M in voluntary donations.

I actually like the idea. The problem is that everything goes into a common revenue pool. There's no way to donate money specifically to pay down the federal debt, for instance. Even if there was, the government would simply divert an equal amount of revenue into other programs.

$5 million doesn't even pay to clean the bathrooms at the Capitol.

And yes, cash is as fungible as it gets.

 

[syonidv]

Perhaps we should install boxes around the cities where folks could donate to the government.

Believe it or not, there have been serious organized movements by citizens to voluntarily pay extra taxes to the government. I think the number in 2013 was close to $5M in voluntary donations.

I actually like the idea. The problem is that everything goes into a common revenue pool. There's no way to donate money specifically to pay down the federal debt, for instance. Even if there was, the government would simply divert an equal amount of revenue into other programs.

$5 million doesn't even pay to clean the bathrooms at the Capitol.

And yes, cash is as fungible as it gets.

I'm on your side in this debate. I'm just making an academic point that voluntary contributions to government isn't as absurd an idea as some people think.

 

[OKTexas]

Civil forfeitures are a violation of two parts of the Constitution, one, due process and two, the takings clause. They should be made illegal throughout the US.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

You're in there!

Taxes have nothing to do with civil forfeitures. I agree with forfeitures based on criminal conviction which also have nothing to do with civil forfeitures.

 

[bripat9643]

If I had my druthers, we would simply abolish all those so-called "services."

No national defense?

Interesting!

We had a national defense without an income tax. Haven't you ever read a history book?

Yes, I have read quite a few history books. And if you had, you would know that every war from the Civil War forward was paid for by an income tax.

Hmmmm . . Wrongo.

How funny you don't know that after condescending to tell me to read a history book! BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Lincoln imposes first federal income tax - Aug 05 1861 - HISTORY.com

On this day in 1861, Lincoln imposes the first federal income tax by signing the Revenue Act. Strapped for cash with which to pursue the Civil War, Lincoln and Congress agreed to impose a 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800.

What kind of income tax did we have during the Spanish-American war?

 

[bripat9643]

Civil forfeitures are a violation of two parts of the Constitution, one, due process and two, the takings clause. They should be made illegal throughout the US.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

You're in there!

Taxes have nothing to do with civil forfeitures. I agree with forfeitures based on criminal conviction which also have nothing to do with civil forfeitures.

IF they have a conviction, it's not a civil forfeiture, which by definition means confiscation with no conviction or even any charges being filed

 

[syonidv]

Civil forfeitures are a violation of two parts of the Constitution, one, due process and two, the takings clause. They should be made illegal throughout the US.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

You're in there!

Taxes have nothing to do with civil forfeitures. I agree with forfeitures based on criminal conviction which also have nothing to do with civil forfeitures.

When you talk about civil forfeitures, but exclude taxes and forfeitures based on criminal convictions, give us an example of what you're talking about. Eminent domain?

What do civil forfeitures have to do with the IRS?

I'm not trying to be combative. I just want to know where you're coming from here.

ETA: Never mind. I looked it up. It still doesn't have anything to do with the IRS.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Where are you getting your numbers from?

The2ndAmendment made it up. He does that. It's his thing.

My numbers come from primary sources, such as the Grace Commission.

Grace Commission Report PPSS

 

[syonidv]

Where are you getting your numbers from?

The2ndAmendment made it up. He does that. It's his thing.

My numbers come from primary sources, such as the Grace Commission.

Grace Commission Report PPSS

It's good that you have a source, but the report is from 1984 and it assumes 1984 interest rates, which were approximately 20 times higher (that's not an exaggeration) than present-day interest rates.

Like it or not, you need the IRS.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Where are you getting your numbers from?

The2ndAmendment made it up. He does that. It's his thing.

My numbers come from primary sources, such as the Grace Commission.

Grace Commission Report PPSS

It's good that you have a source, but the report is from 1984 and it assumes 1984 interest rates, which were approximately 20 times higher (that's not an exaggeration) than present-day interest rates.

Like it or not, you need the IRS.

If you can cite a source of similar rigor showing that the money goes elsewhere, since 1984 you can lecture me.

 

[OKTexas]

Civil forfeitures are a violation of two parts of the Constitution, one, due process and two, the takings clause. They should be made illegal throughout the US.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

You're in there!

Taxes have nothing to do with civil forfeitures. I agree with forfeitures based on criminal conviction which also have nothing to do with civil forfeitures.

When you talk about civil forfeitures, but exclude taxes and forfeitures based on criminal convictions, give us an example of what you're talking about. Eminent domain?

What do civil forfeitures have to do with the IRS?

I'm not trying to be combative. I just want to know where you're coming from here.

ETA: Never mind. I looked it up. It still doesn't have anything to do with the IRS.

The case in the OP was a civil forfeiture, there were no charges, hence no conviction, therefore no due process other than some bureaucrat saying we're going to take your money. The Constitution, in the takings clause, says the government cannot take your property for public use without fair compensation, if money isn't property I don't know what is.

The only connection with the IRS in this case is they are the ones that did it.

 

[S.J.]

With the consumption tax, the money is collected at the point of sale. There is no need for the IRS. The money could be transferred to the government electronically from the retailers at the point of sale. With automobiles, the dealer would collect the tax, with individual sales, DMV would collect it when the car is registered, like it's done now. There is no good reason to keep this outdated and tyrannical agency operating. Get rid of it.

 

[Skylar]

I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but you can't seriously be contemplating abolishing the government agency responsible for collecting the majority of US federal government revenue.

What's your solution? Dissolution of the US federal government? Or perhaps taxpayers should just send cheques to the US Treasury Dept., and that would become the new de facto IRS?

Where do these ideas come from? Enlighten me, please, because to me this seems like angry boys--clueless about how the world works and remiss to the incredible privileges we enjoy--responding to sporadic injustices with patent absurdity like "abolish the IRS".

Great idea. Abolish it and then what?

The whole 'abolish the IRS' schtick is a chattle argument. Its one that rank and file conservatives (who won't benefit from it at all) are taught to bleat by elites (who most definitely will). Its a backdoor flat tax argument. Which is inherently regressive and overwhelmingly favors the wealthy. Which is why the wealthy fund SuperPacs, candidates, and think tanks to promote it. And sheep oblivious to their own self interest mechanically chew this rhetorical cud.

Right now we're seeing a lite version of the same strategy. With republicans actively defunding the IRS....one of the stupidest fiscal moves imaginable. The ROI on IRS funding is something like 6 to 1. For every dollar you fund the IRS, you get 6 dollars back in tax revenue. But elites benefit personally when the IRS has fewer resources to enforce tax law. And the GOP is a purchased party. So they continue to 'starve the beast' by undermining the nation's ability to collect revenue as they are ordered to by the folks that own them.

Plus....when we lose billions in funding and the deficit predictably widens accordingly, they can use the widening deficit as justification for cutting government programs.

In terms of a goal of shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor while cutting funding for programs the middle class and poor depend on, its a brilliant strategy. And damn near a stroke of genius in getting the very people that you're trying to shift the tax burden to as your most vocal advocates.

As these poor, unfortunate souls are quite literally arguing 'cut the programs I use and raise my taxes!'