[rockrr]

"Abolish the IRS"

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why?

[faithhopecharity]

there would be nothing more popular in USA than replacing the current income tax bs ... with something simple, easy, and non-obtrusive (that also could not be readily abused for improper or totalitarian purposes)

this article’s premise is so far, far removed from any contact with the American people.... it must have been emailed in from Uranus?

[anton]

If you want less of something you tax it. Do we want less income?

If you want less of something you tax it. Do we want less spending, more savings? Let’s tax it.

The case to eliminate the income tax in favor of a transaction tax.

[Lazamataz]

A natural born conservative understands that the IRS *IS* unnecessary, if we adopt simple tax plans like a National Sales Tax or a Flat Tax.

Otherwise, mischief can -- and is -- made.

Methinks you are not naturally-born.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The only crackpot part of the argument is from those who would argue to abolish the IRS first.

Not the way to go about it.

First, abolish the income tax by Amendment to the US Constitution.

Then implement a national sales tax (flat tax, whatever) that can never rise about 15%.

These two acts would eliminate the need for the IRS in its current state. It would be replaced by a decent computer and about 50 employees who would be doing nothing more than rolling the sales tax from each state over to the budget office.

Problem solved.

Economy strengthened.

A large part of liberty restored.

[MarkL]

One thing that would certainly make the abuse of the IRS end (i.e. allowing the government to use the IRS to persecute the "undesirables,") would be to allow direct criminal and civil prosecution of IRS employees, of "crimes under the color of law."

This would have allowed every one of the groups and individuals persecuted by Lois Learner and her ilk to be taken to court.

Mark

[Iscool]

I never took it to mean that the IRS should be eliminated completely...The idea is to drastically reduce the scope of the IRS which will naturally reduce drastically the size of the organization...

[Tzfat]

Hmm, could it be the author is concerned about charitable contributions no longer being deductible?

I say no deductions. None. Not even for charity (although I am a big supporter). The good churches, synagogues, and charities will survive by teaching truth, and doing good. Right now they are muzzled because they are just like big business, in bed with the government.

[ozzymandus]

I hope this Larry Walker isn’t the same Larry Walker I knew in college. What a D-bag.

[majormaturity]

The List of We Cant’s”:
We can’t abolish the IRS!
We can’t deport 12 million illegals!
We can’t eliminate the Fed!
We can’t be safe with so many guns!
Can you think of other “can’ts?”

[BfloGuy]

Since there will no longer be an IRS, not to mention three or four other agencies, would we simply forward more than 160 million checks to the White House?

No, you ninny. The Treasury will do fine.

[MasterGunner01]

If we abolished the IRS, what would these poor, overpaid, overperked, incredibly stupid people do for a living? Idea: we export them to Saudi Arabia to help out an “ally”. That will teach those Muslims!

[jaydee770]

“...With taxes of such fundamental concern...”

Are you asserting that the govt should never learn how to collect taxes more efficiently? That even with a simplified method of collecting revenue, the IRS should maintain it’s current bloated, inefficient, overwhelming bureaucracy? There should be no reduction in it’s heavy-handed, “D-student”, in at 9:30a and out by 3:30p, entitlement-minded, all-too-stereotypical federal employees?

All I can say is, “Opinions Vary”! *Drastically*!

[Dr. Sivana]

a small business owner could wind up owing as much as 26% on his or her compensation. Yeah, good luck getting this passed without mass resistance!

Small business owners already get double-taxation, which pretty much starts at around 16% (Payroll taxes on both sides), and a successful small business can go past 26% pretty quickly, especially sole proprietorships.

The elimination of the 39% or whatever it is bracket would tend to bring money home.

Remaining tax collection functions can be devolved to other agencies, or to the states. Cruz himself or Congress can work out those aspects. Reagan's Kemp-Roth tax cut was certainly tweaked before it went into effect.

Cruz is a big picture free enterprise guy, and he is looking to come up with a system that will encourage a growth economy. All candidates are hamstrung by a crippling national debt.

[Dr. Sivana]

First there's Senator Ted Cruz, who might have a better shot if he used his real name,

If you want your piece to be taken seriously as sober analysis instead of partisan hectoring, you can avoid that. I do call the current Bush edition John Ellis Bush, but I don't pretend that it is other than polemic.

No one asked Edward M. Kennedy to not go by Ted, and those in the northeast called John F. Kennedy "Jack" or "Jackie". James Earl Carter was mentioned. How about William Jefferson Clinton, or Hercules R. Perot? James Quayle would be another. And let's not forget Willard Romney. Or Piyush Jindal.

The fact is, a LOT of people have nicknames that they use in their professional life. Quick! Without looking! What was "Lady Bird" Johnson's birth name? Would it really have helped Richard Nixon win in 1960 if his wife went by her real name (Thelma) rather than "Pat"? Why did Michael Sobran start calling himself "Joe" mid career? Why did Dodger centerfielder go by Rick, instead of his given name "Johnny"?

Ted Cruz is a Junior. His dad's name is still a public figure and was there first. My brother in law has always gone by his middle name, because he was always called by it because his legal first name was a concession to aggressive grandparents trying to keep a line going.

There are lots of legitimate reasons to go by a name like Ted instead of Rafael Eduardo Cruz Jr. It sure made his autograph sessions here in Georgia easier.

Now, it is a problem if you change your name for expediency (e.g. Gary Hartpence). Or in some cases, if you play games with your married name to improve your position (various iterations of Hillary Rodham Clinton).

It doesn't apply to a nickname you've used since college. And it doesn't apply to a man whose grandfather changed his surname from an ugly one (Drumpf) to a cool one (Trump).

[MaggiesPitchfork]

As long as there’s a tax on any kind of income, these plans will go the same way as the current one has. Sales tax only. Simple and to the point. If you’re the type of person who likes to keep warehouses of receipts, you can get child credits at tax time.