Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House to prohibit IRS from implementing healthcare law
The Hill ^ | 7/02/12 | Pete Kasperowicz

Posted on 07/02/2012 3:42:06 PM PDT by Libloather

House to prohibit IRS from implementing healthcare law
By Pete Kasperowicz - 07/02/12 01:25 PM ET

The House as early as next week will pass legislation prohibiting the IRS from receiving any money from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the 2010 healthcare reform law.

Passage of the financial services spending bill is especially timely in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling that penalties the government can impose under the law against people who refuse to buy health insurance can be seen as a tax, because it is enforced like a tax.

That finding allowed the individual mandate to stand, and Republicans have already started reorienting their attacks against the law based on the knowledge that it only remains in place because it is an allowable tax.

The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law.

The House will take up the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act sometime in July, and possibly next week when it returns from the July 4 recess. (The rule governing debate on the bill was already approved last week.) While the Obama administration requested another $1 billion so the IRS can implement the healthcare law, the bill, H.R. 6020, does not give any new money to the IRS.

Additionally, it "prohibits the IRS from receiving transfers from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," according to report language accompanying the bill from the House Appropriations Committee.

The report notes that in 2010, HHS allocated $20 million to the IRS for enforcing the healthcare law "without the Committee's knowledge." It also notes that the IRS received $168 million from HHS to implement the law in 2011, and plans to get another $322 million from HHS in 2012.

"The Committee prohibits further such transfers during fiscal year 2013 in section 106 of this Act," the report states.

The bill would spend a total of $21.5 billion on the IRS, Treasury Department and other related agencies, about 1.7 percent less than the current funding level. The bill increases funding in some areas, such as Small Business Administration business and disaster loans, public safety and education in Washington D.C., and the Treasury Department's anti-terrorism financing programs.

To make up for these increases, the bill makes cuts in several areas, including the executive office of the president.

"The committee is disappointed that the administration's request did not propose additional reductions for the EOP salaries and expenses accounts," the bill report says. "The committee believes that the chief executive of any organization experiencing a fiscal crisis should share in the funding sacrifice along with the rest of the organization.

"Therefore, the committee has reduced the salaries and expenses appropriation for each organization under this heading," it adds.

Specifically, the bill would fund salaries in the executive office of the president at $650 million, down $9 million from the current level. White House salaries and expenses would be cut $2.8 million, and funding for costs related to keeping up the White House would be cut $671,000.

Other executive branch agencies would receive token cuts as well, while the Office of Management and Budget would see funding drop nearly $9 million, to $80.5 million.

The bill would also take a swing at the General Services Administration (GSA), which faced harsh criticism this year for a lavish, 2010 conference in which more than $800,000 was spent. Under the bill, the GSA would face more oversight related to its travel budget, and would be banned from holding conferences that don't comply with relevant laws and regulations.

The GSA would also have to submit quarterly spending reports to Congress, and face restrictions in monetary awards it gives to employees.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; commiecare; deathpanels; healthcare; house; irs; obamacare; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: arasina

Thank you. Please get that book and read it. Your spirit will be energized far beyond what you could imagine and quite possibly viewed as assaulted at the same time. It has changed the way I look at several things in both a historical sense as well as things happening today.


51 posted on 07/02/2012 7:37:37 PM PDT by mazda77 (and I am a Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SendShaqtoIraq

Proportionally, nothing of consequence.


52 posted on 07/02/2012 7:43:51 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

No they would go VAT before those most likely.


53 posted on 07/02/2012 7:45:48 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (54,000,000 0bama's people on welfare and food stamps?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Noamie; Principled; skr

I’ve read that piece of regressive crap, and my comment is factual.

The ‘fair’ tax is grossly unfair to those that spend a large part of their income on necessities.

To relieve those whose income is from non-earned sources from an income tax amounts to a massive gift to them, since they spend a minute portion of their income on necessities. By doing shopping in tax free locations, they could skip almost all taxation.

In addition, the unfair tax would extend taxation to areas that presently are untaxed, like professional services (doctors, dentists, lawyers,etc) further harming low and middle income tax payers.

It’s the worst idea to ever come along WRT taxation.


54 posted on 07/02/2012 7:55:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Right, this is just posturing for the fall election. After we’ve won all three branches is it back to business as usual?


55 posted on 07/02/2012 8:05:14 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mazda77
Just ordered it for reading on Kindle. The description makes it look as good as what you describe in your recommendation.
Defeating the Totalitarian Lie chronicles the lives of a German family before, during, and after the 12 years of Nazi rule. Linking the details of their lives to historical developments, von Campe’s facts and figures, especially in regard to the war, are largely unknown to the American people. His assessment that America is moving in the direction of Nazi Germany is terrifying.

The reviews are very positive for the most part. I'm going to focus on the defeating the lie part. Knowledge is power. Thanks again.

56 posted on 07/02/2012 8:06:18 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: arasina
So your answer is to go sit in the corner and cry like Boehnor?

No. I just don't think the bill will make it through the current Senate and that Obama would sign it if did.

It won't, but the Dims vote will be on record, just 4 months before the election. Voting to sustain the largest tax increase in the history of the world basically gives the GOP a club to use in the fall.

57 posted on 07/02/2012 8:17:27 PM PDT by skully (06/28/12 : The banner no longer yet waves....Gadsden DTOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

In a nutshell. The GOP wants to show that its going to repeal aca, but you’ll notice that they’ll never quite get around to it. Sort of like they never quite got around to passing a balanced budget amendment or attacking Roe v Wade the last time they were in power.


58 posted on 07/02/2012 8:21:44 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (The political game is rigged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: arasina

This will be the law of unintended consequences. I assure you. These liberals will not be happy in the end. A tax can be overturned with only 51 votes in the Senate. God, I wish we had a candidate.


59 posted on 07/02/2012 8:25:34 PM PDT by marygonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Stopping 0bamaTax will be just as likely as stopping Social Security. The Republicans should’ve FORCED Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision. Kagan should be hated as much if not more than Roberts for her total lack of dignity. Ooops, she’s a lesbian and cannot be challenged. Hey, Sotomayor’s a Hispanic so she can’t be criticized. Hey, Obama’s black and is immune from criticism LET ALONE IMPEACHMENT. I see a pattern here. Soros really knows how to play us and win the game.


60 posted on 07/02/2012 9:03:00 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skully
,,,the Dims vote will be on record, just 4 months before the election. Voting to sustain the largest tax increase in the history of the world basically gives the GOP a club to use in the fall.

Good point!

61 posted on 07/02/2012 9:33:50 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: marygonzo
This will be the law of unintended consequences. I assure you. These liberals will not be happy in the end. A tax can be overturned with only 51 votes in the Senate. God, I wish we had a candidate.

If the Republicans will fight like girls as Sarah Palin has suggested, they will not be afraid to use everything in their political and legal arsenal. As for the candidate thing, Mary, it seems Mitt Romney got the numbers he needed in the primaries and he is it.

Unless you are absolutely, one-hundred percent confidently certain and sure that the GOP will retake the Senate and keep the House, there is no other way to fight The Illegitimate President except to vote for the opposing candidate. I personally don't recommend voting third party because it does not end well. I did it once and thus am partially responsible for the election of 43% B.J. Clinton.

62 posted on 07/02/2012 9:45:03 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen; Libloather; Gilbo_3
RE :”The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law.
I mean, why bother?

This bill will go with the other 20 symbolic bills they passed repealing Obam-ney Care, put on the shelf. Watch them closely as they pass these symbolic bills and then slip through the REAL bills negotiated with Dems for more spending like the highway bill, Those are the ones that get signed into law,

They count on conservatives being easily distracted by symbolic gestures and it seems to work here with many.

63 posted on 07/02/2012 11:33:56 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us. (it's Obam-ney Care))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Sales taxes let the truly rich (that don’t work, or participate in our earned ‘economy’) get off completely untaxed.

How do you figure? Are you saying the "rich" don't buy things? Did they not ever work? Did their money just fall from the sky?

The "rich" don't only buy more they usually buy more expensive items such as luxury cars, boats, planes, houses, etc.

Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water with me. Besides, those that don't pay ANY income tax will finally get a dose of their own medicine. These people are as Nancy Pelosi said, "FREE RIDERS" I call them losers!

They way the "system" is set up now is, those that pay the most, get the least benefits. Those that pay the least or none at all, (which is half the nation now) get the most benefits.

Now, tell me how the hell is that fair?

This country needs to have a tax revolt that will bring this out of control government to it's knees. If the "rich" simply refused to file and refused to send in their checks every quarter, the federal government would have a sh!t fit.

64 posted on 07/03/2012 2:27:28 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Sales taxes let the truly rich (that don’t work, or participate in our earned ‘economy’) get off completely untaxed.

How do you figure? Are you saying the "rich" don't buy things? Did they not ever work? Did their money just fall from the sky?

The "rich" don't only buy more they usually buy more expensive items such as luxury cars, boats, planes, houses, etc.

Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water with me. Besides, those that don't pay ANY income tax will finally get a dose of their own medicine. These people are as Nancy Pelosi said, "FREE RIDERS" I call them losers!

They way the "system" is set up now is, those that pay the most, get the least benefits. Those that pay the least or none at all, (which is half the nation now) get the most benefits.

Now, tell me how the hell is that fair?

This country needs to have a tax revolt that will bring this out of control government to it's knees. If the "rich" simply refused to file and refused to send in their checks every quarter, the federal government would have a sh!t fit.

65 posted on 07/03/2012 2:27:28 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

I’m trying not to be cynical, but that seems to be the pattern.


66 posted on 07/03/2012 3:01:28 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Greysard

In my opinion, we have exhausted those first three boxes years ago, time to move along.


67 posted on 07/03/2012 3:58:56 AM PDT by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

If all spending bills have to originate in the House, then the Republicans can just exclude funding for the IRS enforcement, or for the law itself. Then there is nothing for the Senate to defeat, or for the President to sign.

I realize I am assuming that the Republicans have courage and want to listen to the people who elected them, and that the Senate and White House will lack the shamelessness to disregard the law and the Constitution, and that John Roberts will not cave in like a weak, craven man if they do.

But I’m just sayin’ - in a constitutional republic this is how it could work.

I’m not quite sure what kind of system we have at the moment.


68 posted on 07/03/2012 4:12:23 AM PDT by cvq3842 (Thanks for all responses, and flames, in advance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith
“The record of the votes will be useful for the elections this fall”

It may provide cover as well since it will be veto proof. A few vulnerable Rat Senators could vote with the Repubs to get it passed only to have Bambi refusing to sign it. No way we would get 60 Senate votes to override a Bambi veto. It could of course hurt Bambi a bit with the electorate.

69 posted on 07/03/2012 4:13:12 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Noamie
Sales taxes let the truly rich (that don’t work, or participate in our earned ‘economy’) get off completely untaxed.

Oh my, that was uniformed and ill thought out!

Income taxes let the truly rich (that don’t work, or participate in our earned ‘economy’)get off completely untaxed!

The truly wealthy do not have income defined as taxable, they have wealth and - thank God - The US does not (directly) have a "wealth" tax.

That to the side, a flat tax is not just a tax on sales!
Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? The NYT perhaps?
It is also a flat tax on all income, and is inherently fair because everyone pays something, unlike the present mess where taxes are used to actually give back unearned income to the people who pay nothing.
Which means, of course, that they pay less than nothing.

Not to mention the wonderfully purifying effect of ending the stunningly bloated and expensive tax system, along with the IRS.

The amount of paperwork alone saved by this would repopulate an entire rain forest. :)

70 posted on 07/03/2012 5:03:26 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The name of the Bill should be, “Repeal the Obama-Roberts Healthcare Tax”. Any Congressman or Senator who votes against the Bill will have it hung around his or her neck in November. A clear choice on a clear question.


71 posted on 07/03/2012 6:07:22 AM PDT by littleharbour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Are you kidding me? You must have read comments and thought the exact opposite of what I intended...

I realize how our Constitutional REPUBLIC is SUPPOSED to work, but I asked the question because there’s NO CHANCE IN HELL that anything stopping the ObamaTAX bill will be passed right now. And considering how much our government has been a dog and pony show theater...I seriously wondered why they were bothering, knowing the outcome already.


72 posted on 07/03/2012 6:12:09 AM PDT by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

The leftist freaks I see are vilifying Republicans for being mad at doing their “patriotic duty” of paying taxes.

Stupid brainwashed leftist freaks.


73 posted on 07/03/2012 6:36:21 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Precisely correct. If the worthless Boehner was serious, he’d have attached something like this to the Highway Bill. But, as he is fundamentally un-serious and merely going through the motions of acting like he is opposing Il Douche’s agenda, we will get a series of worthless, symbolic votes.

It is a rank fantasy, but I truly wish that enough rock-ribbed conservatives are elected to the House and Senate to replace the worthless Boehner and McConnell in their “leadership” positions. Boehner can cry into his white flag of surrender and shuffle off to a back bench where he belongs.


74 posted on 07/03/2012 6:44:32 AM PDT by BrewingFrog (I brew, therefore I am!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BrewingFrog; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; ...
RE :”Precisely correct. If the worthless Boehner was serious, he’d have attached something like this to the Highway Bill. But, as he is fundamentally un-serious and merely going through the motions of acting like he is opposing Il Douche’s agenda, we will get a series of worthless, symbolic votes.

If you recall this is how they used the Ryan plan twice. The Boehner House votes on a symbolic non- legislative ‘Ryan Plan’ that was not even a law(cheers) , then they pull out a already agreed to Obama-Reid-McConnell Boehner Debt limit deal and rush through a vote after putting a gun to House members heads to pass it.
Worse yet, now they are crying doomsday over the cuts to the military in that bi-partision debt bill that they passed that Boehner said he got 95% of what he wanted from..

Note the same thing in the Holder contempt vote (going no place) and the Highway pork spending bill passed immediately afterward,

I am watching these weazels closely.

75 posted on 07/03/2012 6:59:04 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us. (it's Obam-ney Care))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

There are 23 democrats up for reelection in the senate in Nov. Look what happened in 2012 with some of the dems that voted for Obamacare - they were fired. There will be pressure on the 23 dems to support this bill and support a repeal of Obamacare (vote 11 July in the House). True - some won’t care... like NY and Md... they’re beyond hope. But if we sit on our thumbs and rotate,and do NOTHING we will lose. If we fight, perhaps there’s a chance... slim as it is.


76 posted on 07/03/2012 7:03:26 AM PDT by Snow Eagle ("... Against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
I got my hopes up....but then I read this and shake my head. The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law. I mean, why bother?

You ask, "why bother?"

If you understand "how our Constitutional REPUBLIC is SUPPOSED to work" then you understand that the House republicans "must bother."

Even though Obama is not going to sign anything that's good for the country right now, the Republicans MUST show up for work and keep plugging away.

Your comment suggests they ought to stay in bed and "not bother."

How about, "I saw the men standing on the walls of the Alamo and I got my hopes up....but then I saw Santa Anna's vast army and shake my head. They will have to overcome an overwhelming seige without reinforcements. I mean, why bother?"

77 posted on 07/03/2012 7:05:02 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

What if I just declare it to be so? I have just as much right as Obamarama to make fiat law.

“I hereby declare that the IRS shall be prohibited from implementing any provisions of the ACA.”

Done!


78 posted on 07/03/2012 7:06:43 AM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
“I mean, why bother?”

Well, the sensible thing to do has two parts:

First, get everyone on record including Reid who will table the Bill. Even if Reid tables the Bill you go after Senators in the Majority's Party and wreck havoc upon them, which leads to the second part.

Second, strong campaign to belittle and ridicule all who want the IRS to go after the individual's inactivity. This is the part where the GOP screws up or purposely roll-over in the name of “reverence of the system” or “compromise” which has no place in politics at all. The only objective to warfare is to establish your will upon your adversary as quickly and forceful as possible.

79 posted on 07/03/2012 7:20:35 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Methinks you do a disservice to weasels...

Louis Gohmert told me that Boehner had personally told him that he would bring up a repeal of the Budget Control Act of ‘74 (which gave us Baseline Budgeting), once the debt bill was passed. Of course, it was merely a lie. Gohmert had no illusions about Boehner then, and most certainly not now.

I have often wondered why Boehner avoids contact with the more friendly elements of the new media, bloggers, FR, etc. It would be far more fruitful in getting out his message (supposing there is one beyond, “I surrender!”) and keeping the morale of what would be his strongest supporters up. instead, he plays to the same old MSM clowns, with predictable results. It occurs to me that Boehner regards us as a far less forgiving bunch than the MSM, as we demand not only truth, but results.


80 posted on 07/03/2012 7:42:58 AM PDT by BrewingFrog (I brew, therefore I am!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The House and Senate better start to care about what they are going to do regarding the “Bush Tax Cuts”.

USA is going to go back to Clinton era rates and policies in about 6 months and no one is talking about it.

Be ready for more tax hikes on top of the health care tax rape.


81 posted on 07/03/2012 7:48:37 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law.
I mean, why bother?

I think 23 (?) Senate democrats are up for reelection in 2012. They're either going to have to defend ObomaTax or vote against it. Either way, it's a democrat vote loser.
A lot of those democrats - before ObomaTax was spun by Justice Roberts - were in a tight race already.

82 posted on 07/03/2012 8:16:45 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Face it, to do what you want would require changing this whole GOVERNMENT, not just abolishing the IRS. And by change, I mean historically dramatic change.


83 posted on 07/03/2012 8:39:34 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

They could have done that back in 2011 but they di’int.


84 posted on 07/03/2012 8:52:02 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
NO, this is only theatrics since Reid throws them in file 13.
IT IS PAST TIME FOR THE PUBBIES TO FIND A SPINE WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING AND/OR PASS ANOTHER CONTINUING RESOLUTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
85 posted on 07/03/2012 9:10:00 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“...The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law...” “It’s a start.”

...and the end because it will die in the Senate.

Does the House have the power to simply sequester funding for this disaster without Senate approval and Zero’s signature?


86 posted on 07/03/2012 9:42:48 AM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Admirably written.


87 posted on 07/03/2012 9:53:32 AM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The report notes that in 2010, HHS allocated $20 million to the IRS for enforcing the healthcare law "without the Committee's knowledge." It also notes that the IRS received $168 million from HHS to implement the law in 2011, and plans to get another $322 million from HHS in 2012.

The House should make a point of cutting the budget allocation for HHS by $510 million to recover the money it did not need. They should also cut the budget allocation for the IRS by $510 million for monies they spent in excess of their lawful budget. If agencies are allowed to shift money among themselves, what kind of control do the peoples' representatives have over spending and over priorities?

I wonder if the obie-types would appreciate it if a Republican president were to shift several $$billion to build out an interceptor system or an air craft carrier.

88 posted on 07/03/2012 10:17:30 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; BrewingFrog; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; ...

” If you recall this is how they used the Ryan plan twice. The Boehner House votes on a symbolic non- legislative ‘Ryan Plan’ that was not even a law(cheers) , then they pull out a already agreed to Obama-Reid-McConnell Boehner Debt limit deal and rush through a vote after putting a gun to House members heads to pass it.
Worse yet, now they are crying doomsday over the cuts to the military in that bi-partision debt bill that they passed that Boehner said he got 95% of what he wanted from..”

I remember, thanks to you.


89 posted on 07/03/2012 11:55:28 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

No flat tax. Consumption tax is the only fair tax.


90 posted on 07/03/2012 11:58:56 AM PDT by SisterK (waiting for His return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

At first I believed that you were only ignorant.

Now I see you’re a liar.

You would force tax slavery on 99% of us simply because you think that 1% “might” not pay as much tax as you “think” they should. You are a very dangerous person and should spend some real time on personal introspection.

You’re now on my list of posters to ignore. Thank you for your time.


91 posted on 07/03/2012 12:22:01 PM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

Thanks for exposing yourself for the lying foul mouthed charletan that you are.

The unfair tax would steal the life blood out of the working classes, from top to bottom, and you are all for it.
.


92 posted on 07/03/2012 1:16:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Apparently you don’t read well.

I am 100% in favor of a flat tax; it’s the un-fair tax that has to be exposed for the insanity that it is. It would rob the working classes in order to benefit the ultra-wealthy.


93 posted on 07/03/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
I mean, why bother?

It's another stick with which to beat the do-nothing, incompetent, ineffective, worthless demonicRats and their out of control spending, reckless borrowing, and oppressive taxing.

94 posted on 07/03/2012 1:37:03 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

How about converting nearly every agency and most cabinet positions into 9 member advisory panels who’s only purpose it to provide advice to congress on laws to pass, repeal, or change. Let congress pass the specifics of each law and not wimp out handing over the devil in the details to agencies.

Save some serious cash.


95 posted on 07/03/2012 3:15:22 PM PDT by USCG SimTech (Honored to serve since '71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
It's a start.

Sadly, it doesn't even rise to that. Everyone knows that the Senate will ignore it. Hell, if we had 65 Republicans in the Senate we couldn't get it through.

We will never get anything of value through the Senate because too many Republicans there are traitors. I don't mean to conservatism. I mean to the Constitution.

96 posted on 07/03/2012 3:49:02 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“The ‘fair’ tax is grossly unfair to those that spend a large part of their income on necessities.”

If you had truly read the Fair Tax bill, you would know your comment is wholly inaccurate. The Fair Tax bill PREBATES all taxes paid to EVERY INDIVIDUAL on ALL their income, up to and including the level of income according to the poverty level. Though I suspect you have a biased axe to grind, I hope you wake up and spill your diatribe out into the sewer where it belongs.


97 posted on 07/03/2012 7:23:36 PM PDT by Spacetrucker (Sorry, folks, give my spot in the handbasket to an angry lib >:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Now that the TEA party is energized, voting to increase the debt limit is the dumbest thing the Republicans could do. Oh I forgot, Nancy Pelosi says 0bama can eliminate the debt ceiling with a mere executive order, and probably will.


98 posted on 07/03/2012 9:35:51 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: unixfox; Michael Barnes; Principled; Noamie; bill1952; SisterK; editor-surveyor; Spacetrucker

How about a debate on a fair tax or flat tax! Get rid of the IRS altogether and stop the slavery!


My thoughts about a “Fair Tax” versus a Flat Tax:

“The Unfair Double Tax on the Assets of Prudent Savers under the current Fair Tax Proposal”

Any double taxation of taxpayers is intrinsically unfair, unjustifiable, and ridiculous. But the transition from an income tax to a national consumption (sales) tax (Fair Tax) presents this problem.

Under the current Fair Tax proposal, the savings from earnings of prudent savers and retirees that have already been assessed income taxes that are then used for new purchases would not be exempted from the new national sales tax, resulting in a punishing double taxation.

Assets saved after income taxes have already been assessed must be exempted from a new national sales tax when these assets are used for new purchases. After all, the supposed purpose of a Fair Tax is to tax the spending of new earnings which are no longer subject to income tax, not to double tax the previously taxed funds of savers and retirees used for new spending after the Fair Tax is in force.

Why are the proponents of the Fair Tax being so hypocritical by insisting that this unfair double taxation be imposed?

This unjustified stance must be reversed before the Fair Tax proposal is implemented; otherwise this injustice will be challenged in court and would most likely be rectified at the unnecessary expense of litigation.

If the Fair Tax proponents insist on this unfair double tax, then I would have to support the Flat Tax proposal instead.


99 posted on 07/03/2012 9:55:13 PM PDT by Synthesist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Synthesist

Welcome to FR.

The “fair tax proponents” do not insist on anything - they just want to get rid of the 16th and make taxation visible to the maximum extent.

The double taxation thing is an issue today too you know. Earnings are income-taxed, then taxed again when spent [at an average of 10%.] You just don’t see it.

Nevertheless, any double taxation at all is not acceptable IMO. The problem you describe is easily solved btw - just like the business inventory transitional credit was. The transitional inventory credit is to prevent inventory items in stock at the time of transition that had been purchased during the income tax from being taxed again. The same thing will happen w/ existing after-tax savings.

But the exemption will be partial b/c after-taxed savings are already taxed again when spent [about 10% as I said above.]

The important thing is to get rid of the income tax code and avoid bickering about the replacement. As you well know, the main strategy of those who wish to keep our current system is to create arguments on the minutia of any replacement to the extent that no replacement is made.


100 posted on 07/04/2012 5:28:30 AM PDT by Principled (It's not enthusiasm for Romney, it's grim determination to remove Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson