Invitiation to the end of the IRS

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:19:15 -0500, Jim Fisher wrote:

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
The answer is the flat tax.

I used to be in favor of that but the problem is that a flat tax is, in
fact, a regressive tax. Yeah, I know everyone pays the same percentage but
$200.00 a year to someone making $10,000.00 a year is still a lot while
$2000.00 a year to someone making a hundred grand really isn't that much.

A national sales tax is a much more-better idea. You buys lots of stuff?
You pays The Man. This would also encourage folks to save instead of
spending more than they make. . . . Aw hell, I wasn't gonna even reply to
this silly thread but couldn't help it. I'm going to bed before I get wound
up.

Well, even with a flat tax, the IRS wouldn't be going anywhere. At best,
it would be greatly reduced in size. For those that are below the poverty
line, other ammendments, refunds and services can be provided to offset
anything they paid as part of a flat tax program. In fact, many of these
services are already available today. I've heard this argument used time
and time again. It never holds water. A flat tax system is by far, the
most fair and easiest methods of collecting taxes.

Even if I had to pay any extra two or three hunded dollars a year in
taxes, it would easily be offset by the amount that I already pay in
having my taxes done. Last I heard, if a flat tax program were to be
implemented, the average American would pay +-500 dollars within what they
currently pay. That means some of us would actually do better. Others
would do slight worse. In either case, not having to pay for taxes
services would certainly help to offset the difference.

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
But my year-end tax return is so complex that
I can't possibly understand it

I hardon the radio recently that the IRS sent their "experts," posing
as ordinary consumers, to get tax advice from various IRS offices.

The advice they got was wrong in something like 39 out of 43 cases.

vince norris

And take it from someone who had to learn the HARD way- Even if you call
the IRS and speak to their "experts", and follow the advice; if it's wrong,
and you get audited, YOU- NOT the idiot Federal Employee who screwed you -
are the one who pays the penalties!

Don't EVER believe ANYTHING anybody from the IRS tells you except maybe "we
are incompentent- we are here until retirement- there's nothing you can do".

Gary - won't make THAT mistake a THIRD time - Kasten

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
The answer is the flat tax.

I used to be in favor of that but the problem is that a flat tax is, in
fact, a regressive tax. Yeah, I know everyone pays the same percentage
but
$200.00 a year to someone making $10,000.00 a year is still a lot while
$2000.00 a year to someone making a hundred grand really isn't that much.

The flat tax (which I'm against) doesn't even kick in until you make like
$30K.


A national sales tax is a much more-better idea. You buys lots of stuff?
You pays The Man. This would also encourage folks to save instead of
spending more than they make. . . . Aw hell, I wasn't gonna even reply to
this silly thread but couldn't help it. I'm going to bed before I get
wound
up.

Good idea. :~)

BTW, I heard on the radio that something like one-fourth of households now
pay NO taxes whatsoever (aside from local)...so who are the parasites?

Oh, but Jay, thank goodness your employees don't have to pay most of that
stuff. You do! No sweat off their backs, right?

That's the truly sad thing about our tax system -- and also its brilliance.

If each worker had to pony up their taxes at the end of each week, in the
form of a check to the Gubmint, there would be an immediate and violent
revolution in this country.

However, because the Gubmint has been smart enough (devious enough?) to get
the employers to pay it BEFORE the worker receives his check, it's
"painless" and transparent. Out of sight, out of mind.

When someone mentions a job that pays "$40K per year," I always try to
remind them that it's really much closer to $20K, after they've paid off
their taxes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well, even with a flat tax, the IRS wouldn't be going anywhere.

The IRS isn't the enemy. They are a necessary and legal part of our
government.

The enemy is Congress, who keeps passing absurdly more intricate and
inscrutable tax laws, which must then be incorporated and interpreted by the
IRS.

Congress is supposedly made up of our representatives, but I haven't seen
much evidence of that in my lifetime.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article daOhc.2226$IW1.320205@attbi_s52, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

When someone mentions a job that pays "$40K per year," I always try to
remind them that it's really much closer to $20K, after they've paid off
their taxes.

you might also mention that it can cost the employer $50,000 to $60,000.

--
Bob Noel

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message ...
How is switching to a tax on consumption going to help? We already have
sales taxes.
If you don't buy much .. you don't pay much tax. It would be too hard to
enforce.
The answer is the flat tax.

Currently, AOL users cannot post directly to usenet, so I am replying
through Google.

The flat tax is better than the current system, but the FairTax has
significant advantages, especially in cost of compliance and
progressivity.

See

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/materials/flatax.html


Don

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
. net...

You must be a student or a starving artist or something.


Ha ha .. no .. thankfully not.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

The flat tax (which I'm against) doesn't even kick in until you make like
$30K.


BTW, I heard on the radio that something like one-fourth of households now
pay NO taxes whatsoever (aside from local)...so who are the parasites?



Everyone should pay something. From the first dollar. There should be no
parasites.

As for a consumption tax .. it's a great idea. But would be a night mare to
enforce and I think the resources required to chase it down and enforce
it would offset the reduction in govt size from implementation of a flat
tax. People would just pay cash and barter to avoid it like they avoid
sales
tax.

However .. both of these methods are far superior to the current one.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
The real issue is that Congress would fight it tooth and nail. Without
the
IRS code, Congress loses their ability to try to force behavior from
certain
groups, and to dabble in social engineering. The IRS code is what gives
Congress the power to hurt their adversaries, and they won't give it up
without a fight.

John,

You've hit the nail on the head with that one. Couldn't say it much better.

-Trent
PP-ASEL