• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree With Gary Johnson?

Should We Abolish The IRS?


  • Total voters
    43
Just so you know there are less rich conservatives than there are rich liberals or rich libertarians.


Actually extremely not true.



This misconception exists because if you have a room full of 500 mega rich and out of the 500, 5 of the top richest 200 are very loud, vocal Democrats, then naturally those five democrats are going to appear very obvious and influential because they are 5 loud liberals out of a room of 495 mega rich conservatives who are all probably giving attention to those 5 liberals.

Anyone who thinks there are loads of mega rich Liberals clearly has never lived around such people. They are not liberal. Then again it's another world that's very separated from most of us so this error is understandable.
 
To those on the wrong, “rich” refers to those who make their living by honest work or otherwise by contributing more to the economy than they take therefrom; as opposed to those who contribute nothing, and only live on that which is taken on their behalf from the “rich”.

Well according to the numbers there are more poor and lower middle class Americans that are conservative than there are poor and lower class Americans that are liberal. The fact is liberals are better represented in the upper classes while conservatives are better represented on the lower classes. A question to ask yourself is why are liberals constantly bashing rich people when they have the highest chance behind only libertarians to be rich? It's weird, right? See, I don't think liberals are actually out to punish the rich, but are instead out to punish the poor.
 
Last edited:
Actually extremely not true.



This misconception exists because if you have a room full of 500 mega rich and out of the 500, 5 of the top richest 200 are very loud, vocal Democrats, then naturally those five democrats are going to appear very obvious and influential because they are 5 loud liberals out of a room of 495 mega rich conservatives who are all probably giving attention to those 5 liberals.

Anyone who thinks there are loads of mega rich Liberals clearly has never lived around such people. They are not liberal. Then again it's another world that's very separated from most of us so this error is understandable.

I will get you some numbers if I have the time later today, but needless to say you're wrong. In total conservatives make up the smallest group of people that are rich.
 
I will get you some numbers if I have the time later today, but needless to say you're wrong. In total conservatives make up the smallest group of people that are rich.


You're not correct.

You are the typical American in that you believe celebrities, celebrity wealthy (such as the Kennedy's, Sports players, Rappers, Gates) makeup most of the rich of America. They do not.

Most rich people, as in huge majorities, are conservative CEO's, family business owners who got the job through their family who are staunchly conservative or Trust Funds passed down who's current recipients have never held a job.
 
Actually, I was thinking of this. Abolish the IRS, but require states to pay dues. On the other hand, I came to the conclusion that it was an idea that would never work, because there's no real action that could be taken if a state refused to pay.

It probably would be really difficult to work, but I have to say going with a "dues" type of situation from the states as a means of remaining part of the union, as the means of generating federal revenue, is definitely one of the most unique takes on the issue I've seen in a while and I find extremely interesting to even just kind of think and puzzle over.
 
It probably would be really difficult to work, but I have to say going with a "dues" type of situation from the states as a means of remaining part of the union, as the means of generating federal revenue, is definitely one of the most unique takes on the issue I've seen in a while and I find extremely interesting to even just kind of think and puzzle over.


I think what prompted the thought was that there's apparently a proposal to allow states to charge tolls on any interstate highways (many are currently banned from doing so), especially since it's the states that have to do the maintenance.

It just made me think about why we have the Federal government collecting revenue at all, have it all collected by the states, but require the states to remit a certain amount to fund the Federal government - however they chose to collect that revenue. It could be tolls, sales taxes, income taxes - whatever as long as they come up with the money.

The reason I think it wouldn't work is that there's no good remedy if a state couldn't come up with it. You could, conceivably, kick them out of the Union, but that could just be used as a means of secession. It was a fun thought to toy with for a short time though. Of course, it would still require some sort of Federal collection to get the money from the states also.
 
I am for abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve and repealing the 16th.

It is my belief that the very way we have enabled the Federal government to grow way beyond its enumerated powers is because we allowed it to tax as needed to fund its expansion. I say we let states tax as was the original intent and shrink the Federal government back to its enumerated powers only. I know it will never happen but I can dream, right?
 
[QUOTEyou'rean5;37775]It must be great to be a conservative. I truly wish I had the millions to be one. Regretfully, none of my credit cards are black.


What a truly great ideology though. You don't even have to think about anything in life save for which black credit card you want and in what style. Then just vote Republican. Heh. What a wonderful life.[/QUOTE]

So if you're a conservative you're a millionaire?? Wait what? How come no one told me this!!
 
You're not correct.

You are the typical American in that you believe celebrities, celebrity wealthy (such as the Kennedy's, Sports players, Rappers, Gates) makeup most of the rich of America. They do not.

Most rich people, as in huge majorities, are conservative CEO's, family business owners who got the job through their family who are staunchly conservative or Trust Funds passed down who's current recipients have never held a job.
:cuckoo:
 

It's the agency which collects taxes, and it's necessary. Taxes need to be paid, and the country has aggregated to such level and population that a central bureaucracy needs to be in charge of it. Now since Congress is the only entity given power to tax, the IRS would necessarily be 100% in their control. It's not to say that the IRS is perfect, but one way or another, we're going to have a form of it.
 
Big-Government-Jefferson-Quote.jpg

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/FY 2014 Budget in Brief.pdf

During FY 2012, the IRS processed more than 239 million tax returns and collected $2.524 trillion in taxes (gross receipts before tax refunds)

And those on the left think tax payers should pay more taxes. Over $2.5 trillion isn't enough?

Total resources to support IRS activities for FY 2014 are $13,249,242,000, including $12,861,033,000 from direct appropriations, an estimated $110,627,000 from reimbursable programs, and an estimated $277,582,000 from user fees. The direct appropriation is $1,044,337,000 more than the FY 2012 enacted level of $11,816,696,000.

The IRS gets about 13 & 1/4 billion dollars in operating expenses. This agency needs to spend over 13 billion dollars to operate? What a huge waste of tax payer contributions.
 
It's the agency which collects taxes, and it's necessary. Taxes need to be paid, and the country has aggregated to such level and population that a central bureaucracy needs to be in charge of it. Now since Congress is the only entity given power to tax, the IRS would necessarily be 100% in their control. It's not to say that the IRS is perfect, but one way or another, we're going to have a form of it.

Actually you can have a tax system without the IRS or any federal agency for that matter. Take the FairTax, for example.

From the website:

No more complicated tax forms, individual audits, or intrusive federal bureaucracy. Retailers will collect the FairTax just as they do now with state sales taxes. All money will be collected and remitted to the U.S. Treasury, and both the retailers and states will be paid a fee for their collection service

What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Tax Reform Solutions - Americans For Fair Taxation

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatTheFederalTaxSystemIsCostingYou.pdf
 
Well I used to like Gary Johnson, now I see he's just another politician spouting populist BS... oh well.
 
Actually you can have a tax system without the IRS or any federal agency for that matter. Take the FairTax, for example.

From the website:



What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Tax Reform Solutions - Americans For Fair Taxation

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatTheFederalTaxSystemIsCostingYou.pdf

I can agree that what we have currently have a very complex tax structure with lots of loopholes for rich buddies and blah. However, I'm not a fan of regressive tax schemes.
 
This thread should be called "Rich peoples therapy session".
 
It's the agency which collects taxes, and it's necessary. Taxes need to be paid, and the country has aggregated to such level and population that a central bureaucracy needs to be in charge of it. Now since Congress is the only entity given power to tax, the IRS would necessarily be 100% in their control. It's not to say that the IRS is perfect, but one way or another, we're going to have a form of it.

The big mistake was putting the IRS under control by the Executive Branch.
 
The big mistake was putting the IRS under control by the Executive Branch.

Wherever it is, it must be controlled. But yes, the IRS cannot be held by any 1 individual; it belongs to Congress. It's the same with the Federal Reserve.
 
Need to have a tax collecting agency unfortunately, but I'd favor getting rid of parties and political machines, and implementing term limits of one term for President and House of Representatives. Return the Senate election to appointments by Governors and confirmed by the state legislatures.
 
Back
Top Bottom