Joe the IRS Abolisher
You have to give Joe the Whatever He is This Week some credit. He may not know much about anything, but he's always thinking of new ways to exploit his never ending 15 minutes of fame to generate a little more income -- for himself. Think Progress has his latest scheme:
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
Since his stints as a plumber, war correspondent, economist, and anti-labor crusader have had only mixed results, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is taking up a new cause: abolishing the IRS. In a video at IRSvote.com, Wurzelbacher says, “I’m here to ask my fellow Americans to join me to make this the last year we ever have to file a tax return. I’m going to give the American people the opportunity to vote the IRS out.” Visitors can then “vote via the Internet, or by sending a text message or making a phone call to a 900 phone number. However, the site warns that they will be charged 99 cents a vote.”Of course, I'm pretty sure that we can't actually abolish the IRS with a straw poll, and it's not clear how Sam proposes the country would fund such small items as say, the military, without collecting any taxes, but it will be interesting to see how many suckers will be willing to pay a buck to express some feel-good outrage.
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
Labels: dangerous idiots, Wingnuts
posted by Libby Spencer at 1:44 PM
4 Comments:
While I hate the IRS and it's thousand pages of rules, taxes are a necessary evil. We need them to keep the country going i.e. infrastructure, military, etc. However, I'm game for a straight tax. Say everyone pays 10% fed tax on earned income. Maybe this would eliminate cheating, dozens of ways some can deduct to lower their income, while others can't and also eliminate the hours we Americans spend filing out IRS forms every year.
Hey Pamela.
I don't know anything about tax code. What we have now is surely a mess, but I'm told flat tax doesn't work better than progressive tax.
The flat tax is another way to relieve the rich of paying them. It appeals to people with no knowledge of history and who haven't thought the thing through -- which means a lot of Americans, I fear.
It's basically regressive, which is obvious to anyone who took Economics 101 and learned about marginal propensities to consume. Those with the least disposable would be relieved of a larger percentage of it, than say Rush Limbaugh with a million dollar income. 15% wouldn't change the way he lived, but it would put much of the lower middle class into abject poverty.
This is an old, old discussion - it's only new and interesting to those who don't know the history of it and to those who prey on them: Republicans, that is.
Thank you Fogg. I knew there was a logic to it that I forgot. It's not a subject I feel equipped to debate in any event.
Post a Comment
<< Home