Videos: Imagine there’s no IRS
posted at 1:18 pm on April 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Fair tax? Flat tax? Dan Mitchell says he’d take either one over what we have today. April 15th seems like a good day to remember that the IRS is larger than the FBI and the CIA combined — and as Dan suggests, has more power than both, too.
Is there really a flat tax revolution? This May 2008 video explains how nations around the world have begun to realize how a flat tax provides a stable platform for the business sector to succeed. Interestingly, most of the flat-tax nations are in former Soviet-dominated republics.
We’re going in the opposite direction, unfortunately. We continue to complicate our tax system, and the Obama administration promises even more complication. This benefits only two groups: class warriors and the IRS. Be sure to watch both videos.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I am imagining…
and its awesome.
blatantblue on April 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Ahhhhhhhh
^_^
blatantblue on April 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM
That would be awesome.
They have a flat tax in Russia? And we don’t?
Chaz706 on April 15, 2009 at 1:24 PM
The Flat tax doesn’t eliminte the IRS, only the Fair tax does that.
It’s also a lot easier to complicate an income tax compared to a sales tax.
MarkTheGreat on April 15, 2009 at 1:25 PM
:( I hate our school’s filter-I can’t access any vids anymore.
But I am imagining a world with no IRS-
No having to pay my accountant $600+/year bcs I have no idea how to do our AG taxes (which are due like a month before everyone else’s!).
Flat tax would be awesome & a hell of a lot more fair to everyone!
Badger40 on April 15, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Hey, c’mon now. If we didn’t pay taxes, we’d end up with small yellow spots all over the White House lawn (no undocumented workers to counter the puppy pee).
Can’t have that now, can we?
BobMbx on April 15, 2009 at 1:27 PM
A consumption tax is better because it is more moral to penalize spending than to penalize earning.
corona on April 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I’m for the flat tax more than the “fair tax”, but that’s mainly because I don’t trust that the “prebates” paid out to low-income people to offset those taxes will be handled correctly by the government agencies supposed to be doling them out.
teke184 on April 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Iceland and Estonia , maybe not the best example anymore..
the_nile on April 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I good with Dan’s strategy of the flat tax first then move to the fair tax. POlitically the fair tax will be easier to achieve.
Either if these tax strategies require a parallel effort to get back to constitutional spending at the federal level.
WashJeff on April 15, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Ironically, here in California, the state government is spending TAX money, to find out WHY businesses are leaving the state!
The answer TAXES! They simply went to NEVADA, who is more business friendly.
originalpechanga on April 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
- Benjamin Franklin
No. The so called “flat tax” isn’t really flat anyway as income up to a certain level income would not even be taxed, so it’s like a “hockey stick” tax.
MB4 on April 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM
consumption tax would be the ideal, theres no reason the punk i buy trees off of should get out of paying taxes just because they work in an all cash all black market.
ernesto on April 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM
how would a consumption tax prevent this?
lorien1973 on April 15, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Also. Remember, you probably bought trees off that “punk” because his prices are low. How are they low? Cuz he skirts the taxes on his income.
lorien1973 on April 15, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Mm, skirts.
blatantblue on April 15, 2009 at 1:42 PM
The problem with that is that people who have already earned money and been taxed on it, but not spent that much of it, would then get taxed when they spend it, taxed both “coming” and “going”, double taxation.
MB4 on April 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Once the Democrats achieve their master plan of more than 50% of the population not paying federal income taxes, such reform will be impossible.
Yet another reason for us to move to Texas and secede.
toliver on April 15, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Because when he spends his profit on whatever, food gas whatever, he’ll be paying some federal tax.
I could surely get it for a lower price, but it would require buying in bulk and thats just too risky. let the punk run around with a couple ounces in his car. if he gets bagged, it aint on me.
ernesto on April 15, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Unfortunately, we would need a CRS, Consumption Revenue Service, to enforce sales tax collection.
The only way I see a consuption tax happening is:
1) IMplement flat tax.
2) Shrink the Federal government close to its constitutional mandates.
3) Amend the consitution to explicitly forbid income taxes.
4) Implement the fair tax.
THis is a lot to ask, but sure would like to see it.
WashJeff on April 15, 2009 at 1:48 PM
when a nation picks capitalism over socialism by a margin of 2% there’s not much hope for any of this, much less a light at the end of the tunnel. all is lost…
Kaptain Amerika on April 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM
How the heck do they redistribute the money with a flat tax? I mean, that’s what taxes are FOR, right?
hawksruleva on April 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM
All is not lost. How many people do you think really know what socialism is. I guarantee a significant portion of the pro-socialism responders have no idea what socialism is. That said, im sure theres pro-capitalism responders that don’t understand capitalism.
ernesto on April 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM
The best way to de-power the IRS is to repeal the seventeenth amendment and let states take back some of their authority
JohnJ on April 15, 2009 at 1:53 PM
This reminded me a of a topic that came up a few weeks ago here: States withhold federal gas tax revenue. Gov. Perry should take action and do this to assert his state’s 10th amendment rights.
WashJeff on April 15, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I believe Congress will work to change the tax code the day hell freezes over.
GarandFan on April 15, 2009 at 2:01 PM
How about NO taxes? Fund a downsized government via offshore oil/gas/energy resources. Look at Kuwait. Alaska doesn’t collect income tax, it sends its residents oil money for gosh sakes.
hogfat on April 15, 2009 at 2:10 PM
“Hello friends of liberty”?
lol
Ok ok, i’ll keep watching.
Dash on April 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I dunno. I’ve always thought it’d make sense to tax every transfer of money, instead.
You keep 100% of what you make. Right? No taxes on your income.
But you take $40 out of an ATM, $42 is taken from your checking account. $2 for Unca Sam, $40 for you.
You spend $50 on a watch with a card, you pay $53 or something. $3 for unca sam.
That way everything is taxable. Stock purchases, lawyer fees, etc.
I don’t know the exact rate…but it seems like a pretty simple way to ensure everyone participates with minimmal oversight needed.
lorien1973 on April 15, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Unless the “punk” he buys trees makes all his purchases on the black market, whenever he buys something, he will pay consumption tax. At present, 100% of his “off the books” income is tax free.
MarkTheGreat on April 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM
A method to transition would have to be found.
MarkTheGreat on April 15, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Most states and counties get much if not most of their income from sales taxes already.
MarkTheGreat on April 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM
trees is a metaphor for pot, I believe. Looking at the followup.
lorien1973 on April 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Before the 17th Amendment, States were sent an invoice for their share of the amount needed for the Federal Government to operate. Senators acted as brakes on bills coming out of the House. Since they were appointed by their state and the state would be responsible for what the Senators passed (via the President) into law. States could (and did) recall their Senators for “inappropriate actions”.
The best option in my book, would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to this model.
It’s amazing how smart we think we are, and yet continue to screw up such an elegant system of government.
dominigan on April 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM
…and repeat the 16th Amendment also (income tax)
dominigan on April 15, 2009 at 3:09 PM
*repeal
dominigan on April 15, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I remember last election the old grey haired jerk from Alaska who ‘ran’ for the dem nomination. He was for a national sales tax. BUT, under his plan, the government would send everyone a check every month — a ‘pre bate’ he called it –to make up for the fact that citizens would pay a sales tax on some things which were exempt, such as food. That way, the citizen becomes AGAIN beholden to the government for a monthly check, and by tweaking it, the government retains power.
The simple solution is just to make some items non taxable at the point of purchase — problem solved.
As always, the devil is in the details.
Labamigo on April 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM
The biggest problem with the flat tax is there will never be a flat tax. Even if Congress scraps the current tax laws and say “We will tax everybody’s income at 9% since God only asks for 10%” sooner or later someone will say “Let’s exempt poor people” and someone else will say “Let’s make charity tax-deductible” and someone else will say “What about business expenses?” All of these exemptions individually will seem harmless and acceptable but if they are implemented it won’t be long until we’re back to the zillion page tax laws. That is how we got to the current tax laws.
Instead of using the Flat Tax as an interim step to the National Sales Tax simply have the new Constitutional Admendment say the current income tax system will end 2 years after ratification and be immediately replaced by a national sales tax. That will give the IRS time to finish any investigations before closing shop and prevent Congress from imposing both an income tax and sales tax on the people.
AaronGuzman on April 15, 2009 at 5:07 PM
A truly fair tax is one that is the same amount for everybody. It it’s “One man, one vote” then it should also be “One man, one dollar.”
Another way to make it fair is to give people who pay higher taxes more votes. After all, someone with 100,000 shares of stock has 100 times more votes in a company’s shareholder election than someone with only 1,000 shares.
If you don’t pay taxes you will still have a single vote in an election. But if you bring your tax returns to the polls, they will give you one extra ballot for every $100 dollar in taxes you paid.
AaronGuzman on April 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM
John Lenin would be proud,
NOT!
I meant Vladimir Lenin…
Kidding again!
Glenn Jericho on April 15, 2009 at 5:48 PM
The federal Government bailed out failed corporations that are well connected to both the treasury and federal reserve. We all knew Obama was going to “spread the wealth” , but by bailing out these corporations, along with George Bush, he is spreading the pain. All Americans and their children will end up paying for the damage done by reckless government officials and investors.
A flat tax would be a good first step in reforming the American system, but there must be a separation of Commerce and State. If it’s good enough for religion it’s good enough for Capitalism. Until we break the American keiretsu involving Wall Street, the Treasury & the Federal Reserve we will continue to suffer.
Stickeehands on April 15, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Agreed. But why even that? Government should collect through voluntary contributions and, if necessary, user fees.
Libertarian Joseph on April 16, 2009 at 10:48 AM