Skip to comments.Ted Cruz launches political convention with crowd-pleasing demand to abolish the IRS
Posted on 03/06/2014 8:19:36 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Conservative firebrand Ted Cruz launches political convention with crowd-pleasing demand to abolish the IRS
Ted Cruz, the rock-ribbed conservative Texas senator who figures to be a factor in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, told thousands of conservatives Thursday morning that the IRS should go the way of the dodo.
'We need to abolish the IRS,' he said, calling instead for a flat income tax rate and a user-friendly tax return that can be filed on a postcard.
That verbal gauntlet, thrown as much at a near-century of tax collection as at the Obama administration, was Cruz's biggest applause line.
'By virtue of your being here today,' he jokingly cautioned the nation's largest annual gathering of politically conservative activists, 'tomorrow each and every one of you is going to be audited by the IRS.'
On Wednesday the former IRS official in charge of vetting nonprofit groups that seek tax-exempt charitable status refused, for the second time, to tell a congressional committee what she knew about the scandal.
Lois Lerner claimed the Constitution's Fifth Amendment afforded the right to remain silent, despite a party-line ruling from the House Oversight Committee that she waived that privilege by offering a lengthy opening statement in a May 2013 hearing.
More than 200 right-wing organizations, mostly those linked to the tea party movement, sat in limbo for as many as three years while the IRS dithered and held them up during two election cycles.
The agency is now moving toward new regulations that would allow it to codify the secret rules it used to screen out conservative organizations while quickly green-lighting liberals.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I think Ted Cruz has the right stuff!
He will succeed in uniting libertarian and conservative wings of the party and roll to victory in 2016.
There was a time when THAT kind of statement seemed extreme.
NOW, I think it's the very LEAST we can do to avoid the worst economic consequences for American workers and taxpayers.
For reading later.
flat tax, 10% across the board, no exemptions
Take ALL the power away from the IRS and rule makers, make it simple and easy to understand, and put several billion in wasted effort of compliance back into the economy.
AND the government HAS TO live within that 10%, no deficit spending except for wartime emergency.
I try to read most FR threads on Sen Ted Cruz as I think he’s great. One thing I’ve noticed is that many of the articles say “the conservative firebrand, Ted Cruz”.
Guess I like conservative firebrands ;-)
Only half jokingly I'm sure.
No, ALL linked to the tea party movement.
My sister has spent the last 20 years as a tax preparer. She says we will never have a flat tax because a Congressman’s power (and funding) comes from the ability manipulate the tax code to give privilege to constituents. So, if Congress has a vote it won’t be eliminated as it will reduce their power, prestige and ability to extract bribes.
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
The media used the term "left-wing firebrand or socialist firebrand" to describe Hugo Chavez. I believe that they use it to describe someone who strongly connects with the public.
in a perfect world, but Ted speaks to much truth and the current voting majority can’t process truth. Knowledge is pain, facts hurt and the voting majority wants a no pain solution.
Folks like Ted and Rand will have a tough go of it. I’ll vote for them, but my opinions are a minority view...IMHO
He has also in the past called for the FairTax which is vastly superior to a flat tax. With a flat tax, the IRS must stay in place, and flat taxes of past US history (there are several) have always grown like a metastasis over time.
Cruz has scuttled his campaign with this. Until the ballot recaptures its veracity, no popular cause has a chance. Never mind the entrenched political class who will do ANYTHING to prevent it.
She’s right and she’s wrong. To pass a flat tax will take a near revolution and so she’s right about that.
But she’s wrong that after a flat tax is passed, members of Congress will be right back at it carving out exemptions and favors.
A flat tax never stays flat!
Here’s a vastly superior tax reform with a lot more support:
As long as there are any Federal taxes, the IRS will exist. Cruz can abolish, recreate and rename it, but it will still exist. The power of the IRS is rooted in Federal tax complexity. Simplify Federal taxes (flat tax, etc), and the IRS will neutered.
I agree with the flat 10% tax, I’ve been advocating that here in Alberta too.
Next problem, Islam and the muslims in North America, what’s the solution?
OK-I’d vote for THAT!
In the end, taxpayers need to be guaranteed some accountability and there is NONE at this point.
Our tax revenue goes down a bottomless pit...while legislators demand ever more, as if they actually DESERVE what they have squandered already!!
Massive deportation for anyone who does NOT follow the US constitution, and freedom of religion is one of those rules. You can be a muslim here if you respect OTHER people’s religious choices and do not try to usurp The Constitution with Sharia law.
I had a look at that, it’s something I could possibly get behind with some more research. Sounds decent enough at the first look.
Not bad, close but not close enough. The problem with that method is they will pretend to follow the constitution and be a good citizen until such a time there are enough of them.
Mass deportation must happen and for those that do want to stay, well they’d have to give up being muslim. I don’t see any other solution to guarantee our rights and freedoms.
Thank very much for the links. Go Cruz!
Do you think the definition of the word "income" is subjective? It will be with that plan. At that point, there will need to be enforcement.
The real problem is spending. No tax plan is going to fix that without addressing the Congress' systematic ignorance of Article I Section 8.
At its best, it MUST be a-political... yet THIS President has changed that.
Now, it is a very handy cudgel that he uses to bully, coerce and reproach Americans who do not agree with HIM!
It doesn’t even attempt the pretense of unbiased and strictly objective conduct any more.
And sent to who?
There's a solution to that:
|Tax Reform Amendment|
| Section I
No tax, federal or state, shall ever be withheld from the wages of a worker of any citizen of either.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied.
The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof.
The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.
No retroactive or ex post facto tax (or fee) shall ever be valid.
The congress may not delegate the creation of any tax or fine in any way.
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position.
Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent applying, attempting to apply, or otherwise causing the application of an ex post facto or retroactive law shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit.
Taxing income is immoral.
I wouldn't go quite that far; though I certainly agree that withholdings are immoral.
It’s a tax on production.
Why not come around to my field and seize half my crops? It’s feudalistic bs.
That's not, strictly speaking, true.
If you're a farmer it operates much like a sales-tax: you could give it away and eat/reuse everything you produced without paying anything for an income-based tax-system... this is untrue for a production-based tax.
Tax Reform AmendmentI like your list quite well, though Id prefer more formal language for some of them.
I do have one more serious quibble - you mention forfeiture of pensions for misbehavior. That seems to establish a precedent against term limits. Under term limits, nobody should be an elected officer long enough to justify getting a pension from it.My other impulse is to add things which would make it even more impossible to get ratified. But theyd be off-topic.
” - - - One thing Ive noticed is that many of the articles say the conservative firebrand, Ted Cruz. - - - “
It takes a Conservative to fire the brand called Republican In Name Only.
Once the RINOs are diminished, then protection of the brand called Obamanation can be fired.
Fire the brand Obamanation, and save OUR Nation.
Some very solid practical proposals there: No lobbying, term limits, abolish every smidgen of Obamacare, repeal Dodd Frank, balanced budget act . . . but the most important part of the speech is the wake-up call to all of America and the trumpet sound to stand on principle.
Specifically, the government has the authority to meet this years expenses by borrowing an amount no greater than last years actual revenue. But it must retire that debt this year. That is, next years outlay budget is limited to this years revenue - not some pie-in-the-sky rosy scenario guestimate of next years revenue.And Congress must live within that limit or else be ineligible for reelection.
I have a PhD in Statistics, my thesis chair was a personal longtime friend and colleague of Milton Friedman. I met Leo Linbeck Jr. (the FairTax founder) on several occasions at his office in Houston (he recently passed away and his son Leo III has taken the FairTax helm). I have encyclopedic knowledge of the FairTax and know personally the architects of the legislation. So feel free and don’t hesitate to ask questions.
The movement is now in an educational stage. So I take seriously the responsibility to open the eyes of persons that are curious because 1) once a person ‘gets it’ they never let it go and 2) each person that gets it will in turn open the eyes of many others. This is the way the movement grows.
The movement has ten times the support in Congress over a flat tax. But the 75 sponsors in Congress who support it are waiting for the grass roots to wake up to it. It takes only 3000 FairTax activists in each congressional district to turn the US Rep towards it.
Although the FairTax is now about 12 years old, I don’t mind if it takes another 5 to 10 years to pass. I tell people that it took the income tax 52 years to become constitutional (Lincoln passed a 1% flat income tax in 1861 and it grew to become graduated, then was struck down by the Supreme Court). I don’t think the FairTax will take so long.
Let me brief you on the criticisms of the FairTax. About 99% of the criticisms come from people that have a vested interest in the income tax. Tax Accountants are not the biggest critics as their national groups have stated that tax work is like pulling teeth and is conflicting, they would rather shift to what they do best, business planning. The biggest critics are tax lobbyists inside the Beltway. Since Reagan was in office the number of tax lobbyists has more than quadrupled from about 12,000 to over 50,000. That is the group that circles the wagons for the income tax. The good news is there are more than 144 million individual income tax filers. If 10% of individual tax filers ‘get it’ including the overwhelming support from business tax filers, Congress will pass it.
Now here are some of the salient criticisms of the FairTax:
1) It doesn’t cut spending and the problem is spending.
True and not so true. Cutting spending to balance the federal budget never happens because too many people have their hands in the pie and the spending is murky and dark if not hidden. Spending doesn’t get into everyone’s face like it should. The income tax is the perfect smoke and mirrors tool to hide who pays the appropriations for spending.
The FairTax is like a bright shop light that shines on the real process of appropriations so that everyone can see it and understand it. The FairTax rate is set at 14% of all RETAIL goods and services and increases to 23% to be REVENUE NEUTRAL, why? Because the FairTax does not seek to become embroiled in spending fights that go nowhere. But 23% is what the government takes out of GDP. This ‘educates’ people as to the true cost of federal government. A concrete example: a 2 X 4 at a home improvement store costs $2 on the shelf and $0.46 of that $2 is added cost created by the federal government. If people don’t like 23% as a rate, their congressional representatives vote on setting the rate every year. If people want a lower rate, then they can put pressure on Congress to reduce the rate. Of course this will make people consider all the entitlements that federal government administers but it will open the eyes of the consumer to know that the cost of federal progressive programs hit them in the pocketbook at the cash register. This is why progressives become hysterical about the FairTax. It goes without saying that this applies pressure to cut spending. We say the FairTax is TRANSPARENT.
So 23% is high but that’s not the fault of the FairTax, it is the fault of spending. However, it is a potent talking point for many pols to evade discussion of the FairTax.
2) The FairTax is a VAT.
No, the FairTax is absolutely not a Value Added Tax. A VAT is a tax on each stage of production and it is hidden to the consumer. The federal business income tax acts as a VAT to impose a cost on a product or service on each stage of its production. Passing a VAT on top of income tax would increase the cost of goods and services.
The FairTax never taxes businesses. The FairTax only taxes NEW products and services sold to the consumer (RETAIL). Therefore, businesses are freed from having to pay any taxes or to file any forms other than sales tax reports to state collection agencies who act as collectors for the federal government. We can think of the FairTax as a giant shunting device. It eliminates all federal taxation in the supply chain and ‘shunts’ them to the retail endpoint. It is a replacement tax, not an additional tax.
The FairTax comprises a RETAIL TAX. The FairTax is legislation tax code to cover who pays, what rates, adminstration and enforcement and so on, The tax provision of the FairTax is called the National RETAIL Sales Tax or NRST.
3) The FairTax and the Income Tax will exist in parallel.
This is a valid criticism. Although the FairTax scraps the federal income tax code and abolishes the IRS, the 16th amendment remains in place and will always pose a danger to resurrect an income tax in future sessions of congress. In Washington state where I live, there is only a sales tax on consumer goods, yet progressives try now and then to sell the public on an income tax of ‘only 1%’ to funds schools and children’s programs (for the children). We can imagine that future sessions of Congress with support of the media will launch an initiative to tax the rich only 1%. All income taxes in US history started out as 1% with a slightly higher rate on the super rich who actually never paid as they bought support in congress to change the definition of ‘income’.
The FairTax has a provision in its legislation to sunset in 7 years if the 16th Amendment is not repealed. The leaders of the FairTax think that people will be so enamored with the FairTax that they will never seek to go back and they will support a repeal of the 16th.
But still it needs to be understood that vigilance must exist to guard against a reemergence of the income tax.
4) The FairTax is a socialist’s dream because of its ‘Prebate’.
This is false. The Prebate (also called Rebate) is for every American and represents a tax cut that is uniform for everyone. It is a tax cut because in effect it says there will be no federal taxes on the essentials of living. And this is for everyone the same; the same for Warren Buffett, the same for grandmothers on Social Security.
How is this done? The poverty rate is calculated by the DHHS and has been means tested and seasoned for decades. It is an accurate measurement of what is necessary for survival. It reflects income necessary to pay for the essentials of living. It is for an individual about $10,300. This translates to a little more than $858 per month and 23% of this amount is about $197. So the FairTax will not take the first $197 of taxes every month because it is assumed that people will spend all of the $858 per month that is poverty level spending.
So how to easily ensure people do not pay the first $197? Send everyone a monthly tax rebate either in the form of a check or on a card. The federal government is fantastic at printing, cutting and mailing checks. Under Bush II there were two tax rebates mailed to more than 100 million filers. The federal government can do it and it does not cost a lot. More than 47 million people hold EBT cards that are charged up every month. It is no problem to issue a tax rebate card and charge it up to $197 every month.
5) The FairTax Rebate can be manipulated to reward certain constituencies,
This is false. The US Constitution’s uniformity clause and its original tax clauses prohibit different tax treatments to different segments of the population. It would be unconstitutional to pay New Yorkers $350 a month in federal FairTax rebates and $150 a month to red state residents.
However, bringing back the 16th Amendment effect of an income tax code can skew the uniformity of the original provisions of the US Constitution.
6) The FairTax unfairly taxes twice those who save.
This is false. Today’s savers pay an income tax and then save what they can. Eventually they pay a 23% NRST when they spend their savings. So the criticism is that the FairTax is a double tax.
Now here is where a concrete example is important because this criticism confuses people the most.
The idea of the FairTax is that money saved is eventually spent in some fashion. And under the income tax it is spent on goods and services that have a federal government embedded cost of 23%.
Going back to the $2 2X4 on the shelf of a home improvement store, the cost of the 2X4 attributed to the federal government is $0.46. But the IRS and the income tax are abolished under the FairTax so the 2X4 price on the shelf falls to $1.54 and when it is taken to checkout, $0.46 is added back on for the cost of the federal government.
So savers are already taxed twice under the income tax, they just don’t see the second tax event when they spend their savings because the cost of goods and services is inflated by the federal income tax code and is hidden from them.
And under the FairTax savers are never taxed at the outset when they earn income. They are only taxed when they spend on retail goods and services.
Hopefully this will give you a leg up on tax history and policy.
I can assure all those that are curious that the FairTax beats the income tax in every respect. It will unleash a huge wave of growth in the USA and make American products and services much more competitive abroad because the FairTax is not collected on exports. The FairTax collects taxes from every segment of society who do not present pay taxes such as foreign tourists, and black market operatives resulting in a huge increase in government tax revenues. Businesses alone will save more than 300 billion in tax compliance costs.
Oh and speaking of black markets, this is another false criticism of the FairTax, that it will create or expand black markets. It does not. Black markets exist now and only one person is necessary under the income tax code to commit tax evasion. But under the FairTax, two persons, a buyer and seller have to conspire to evade taxes. Sting operations can quickly and efficiently wipe out black market activity under the FairTax.
So, in sum the best criticism of the FairTax is that the rate of 23% is too high. Well so what? It should make people angry every time they see 23% added at the checkout stand. I think that’s a good thing. It will start to make Americans really think about the cost of federal spending.
I do have one more serious quibble - you mention forfeiture of pensions for misbehavior. That seems to establish a precedent against term limits. Under term limits, nobody should be an elected officer long enough to justify getting a pension from it.
I'm not thinking solely of elected officials, but also the unelected bureaucrats and judges. The inclusion of elected officials therein is to emphasize that they are not immune (it is, after all, loss of position in addition to pensions).
My other impulse is to add things which would make it even more impossible to get ratified. But theyd be off-topic.
I have three other amendments I've been working on — one that would remove the ability of the federal government to define the value of the Dollar (defining it in terms of physical gold) and limiting the amount of debt that can be incurred to 110% of the amount [of physical gold] the Treasury has possession of and forbidding the imposition of
unfunded liabilities upon the states. &mdashl I think that one would be more impossible than this one.
I agree, a flat tax is a sophomoric idea and will never gain support. If the fair tax or, (I prefer), consumption tax was ever fully explained to the populaces, it might have a chance of succeeding.
Ironically, in a world where Representatives have computer programs and data which allow them to choose their voters, the state governments which draw the district lines have a stronger say over Congressional delegations than they do over Senators. Id rather have Senators be the running mates of governors, so that the effects on the states of unfunded mandates passed by the Senate would reflect directly on the governors who nominated them.
That would require that senatorial terms be either 4 or 8 years. If 4 years, then the governor would have to either name (e.g., renominate) a senator for the four years after his term as governor or take over the senate seat himself. That would have the merit of assuring governors, (if not state legislators) would get respect in Washington.
As Pamela Geller says, You can worship a rock if you want to. Just don’t throw the rock at me.