You want to end the marxist income tax and restore this country back to its founding principles almost immediately? END INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING. When people have to write that check to the irs every month themselves, only then will they see the true cost of guvmint. Withholding succeeds in hiding the cost, since one never receives his total earnings thus never misses it.

Eliminate the IRS and revise the entire tax code. Take that mountain of conflicting laws and regulations and build a bonfire. The new code must be contained within 30 pages including the index. The new code should not be written by either lawyers or accountants.

$5Au finds Johnson to be a likeable guy with some interesting ideas. However, a consumption tax (i.e., Federal sales tax) would be unacceptably regressive to most people.

The GOP now has control of the Senate and the House. Should we have a GOP president two years from now, I fully expect that the IRS be abolished, replacing it with the anything that would be better.
When I voted last Tuesday, I felt sorely tempted by the sight of Libertarian as a straight ticket option. But I wanted to damage the Dems as much as I could.
Should there be a GOP president and an IRS by the next midterm election, I do believe I'll be voting against the GOP too. The GOP still sends requests over the years for me to return as a party member. Bah!
You gotta earn me back first.

People WILL keep all their earnings and pay for the government on their transactions. Poor will pay nothing, rich will pay more.

However that is fair because the rich have more property that the military defends, the mail comes to, interstate commerce benefits etc. so they should pay more for the protection and services.

People are duty bound to pay for the government tasks/powers that the Constitution explicitly lists. Not anything else.

Everything else the government took upon themselves (based on redefining "General welfare" in the taxation power to mean any powers to DO what ever they wanted) is THEFT and fraud .

Read this for the Fairest Tax. http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPress/...

What a boom it would be for all, if they could only see the forest for the trees...

Neal Boortz's "fair tax" is probably the best tax idea out there. It gets rid of the IRS, isn't quite as regressive as a simple sales tax, and isn't as punishing on high earners as the income tax. It puts control in the hands of consumers and forces government to adapt, rather than the reverse that is the current situation. Witholding is definitely a problem, and isn't it ironic that voting and tax day are almost diametrically opposed? Well then, maybe it's not so ironic.

This interview was unfortunate. First, Johnson used the "revenue neutral" mantra which means all we are debating is the means and methods of the theft not its justification or magnitude. Second, he made no reference to decreasing the size and expenditures of the insolvent federal government. Unsatisfactory.

I only wish that he had justified abolishing the IRS on the grounds that individuals are entitled to keep 100% of their earnings. A Federal sales tax would be a perfect way to support limited government spending and the Progressives would finally have their way in that the 1% would be paying their fair share. They spend more, they pay more taxes.There should be no deductions, no favors. If you can afford a 1/2 million $ Ferrari, you pay $50,000 in taxes. If your wallet can handle a $13,000 Versa, you pay $1300 in taxes. What could be more fair that that?

The purpose of taxation is to remind you that you are owned.

Despite the uptick in unemployment (visualize ex-IRS "workers" wandering around like zombies) I'm all for abolishing the IRS. The agency has been used to selectively persecute our own citizens. They are so corrupt that not one internal whistle blower surfaced. That's a clean house and start over event in my opinion. The fact that no one is yet being held accountable or in prison is an abomination.

A consumption tax is regressive, but until the point where people can not afford basic necessities (like food, clothes, shelter, etc. ) due to the incremental cost, it still taxes the affluent at a much higher rate. So despite the label, how is that unfair? Some necessities could be exempted from sales tax as is the case today in many states. This would lead to wrangling over where we draw the line between necessary food, clothing, and shelter VS caviar, designer jeans, and mansions. I think that's manageable. The more affluent will purchase more and pay more tax ( the spoils of their hard work, risk, effort, etc.) and subsidize the cost of government for those who either choose to or can not afford it.

The challenge for the moochers is that they cannot control the income stream as well as they can with and income based tax. Any consumption tax puts some decision making back in the hands of the consumer and makes the merchant the tax collector. I have actually considered taking a lower paying job to reduce the taxes that are confiscated, but that's a much greater sacrifice than not buying a fancy car or a yacht.

The bottom line is that you can't divorce a conversation about abolishing the IRS from a conversation about reducing the size of Federal Government. The government now behaves like any other business and is in the business of trying to get larger, more powerful, and more influential - the take over of health care being the most recent example. Unlike a business in a free market the government business can do all of this while performing abysmally in every competitive metric like efficiency, competitiveness, and quality which serve to keep private enterprise "honest".

The Libertarian Party has been in favor of abolishing the IRS and the federal income tax since its inception. The idea has never gained traction with the general public, and will not likely do so in the foreseeable future.

From a tactical perspective, I think the best strategy for the LP is to propose abolishing federal income taxes from the ground up, starting at the lowest end of the income scale. Turn the 10% bracket into a 0% bracket and exempt the first $15,000 of earned income from the Social Security / Medicare payroll tax. It would mean that a full-time employee making the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (about $15,000 per year) would pay no federal withholding tax at all.

A tax cut of this size and shape would be an immediate hit with minimum-wage workers (providing a 12% increase in their take-home pay) and would provide substantial tax relief to the middle class. Such a proposal would favorably contrast the Libertarian Party’s viewpoint with the Democrats’ “soak the rich” mentality and the Republicans’ “trickle-down” economics – our plan would be more of a “trickle-up” approach.

The annual “cost” to federal revenue would be $250 billion or less – around one-third the cost of the financial system bailout of 2008. Even without corresponding spending cuts, such a tax cut would probably score a net gain for the overall economy, increasing both consumer spending and investment. Such a “starve the beast” approach to tax-cutting would mean reducing government revenues first and then leaving it to the “deficit hawks” in Congress to enact corresponding spending cuts (or not, as they choose).

We need to translate our high-level goals (such as “abolish the IRS”) to incremental concrete proposals (such as “cut income taxes starting at the bottom”) that the public is more likely to support.