H.R.25 – Repeal income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service

That is, unfortunately, the point.

It should be obvious by now that the whole game is to shift cost and risk to the bottom 90% while shifting profit and wealth even further to loyalists among the top 0.1%.

Viewed through this lens, the whole program is remarkably internally consistent. Tariffs on imports, cuts to corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and estate taxes, indiscriminate across-the-board reductions of 50% or more to regulatory agencies, etc.

That's a feature to the bill's sponsors.

Additionally, in most countries, crimes that carry a monetary penalty are also highly regressive (such as traffic violations like speeding).

This is a very unpopular opinion, but I believe ideally taxes in America should be more a lot more "regressive" like they are in Sweden. VATs are economically more efficient than income tax, and harder for corporations to avoid. Taxes are only actually regressive when the tax dollars don't go back into social services for the people, so that's something that would need to be prioritized first. I suspect that a major reason why the American government is so inefficient with spending is because there is no incentive for them to be, as the majority of tax dollars comes from a minority of high income workers.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-...

Sales tax is not regressive per se. It's just much less progressive than an income tax. Rich people still pay more overall since they spend more money.

An example of a regressive tax would be something like cigarette taxes - poor people would actually spend a larger share of their income since they are also more likely to smoke.

It shouldn’t need to be said, and it probably won’t be. Even if it was said, most people probably wouldn’t get it.

I’m sure the libertarian’s are rejoicing right now. As is every VC.

You simply make basic necessities sales tax free. Fresh foods (non-processed), education materials and tuition, medical premiums, and the first $1K of housing per month, and problem solved. It's an easier tax to enforce and requires a smaller surveillance state. Instead of attempting to audit 350 million individuals the revenue dept can just focus on a couple million businesses. Instead of pouring over 15000 pages of write-offs and exemptions, it's a simple % of taxable revenue. The states that run on sales tax alone are more affordable than states that run off income tax. It's a superior tax in every way.

I agree with what you wrote but your opening statement could use some nuance.

What portion of taxpayers don't pay tax because they make too little compared to those using tax avoidance schemes not to pay tax?

Of the top 50%, what does the tax vs income chart look like?

As income rises, where does spending money come from? Wages, CC, selling stocks/bonds, loans backed by assets (stocks, bonds, etc)

This info could help refine where taxes should go. I have come to accept that a wealth tax would be a good tax to have. I came to this by playing around with the simplistic model at the end of the pudding article linked to below. It approximates the impact of a wealth tax.

https://pudding.cool/2022/12/yard-sale/

They aren't anarchists. They absolutely believe in the state and the monopoly on violence, and the legitimacy of their own power. They aren't even eliminating taxation - they just want to replace everything with a sales tax.

The things they want to burn down don't benefit working class people either, just the billionaire class that is surrounding Trump for the next administration (which includes the richest man in the world, Elon Musk)

For as much as I hear about the "deep state" from MAGA, you think they'd want to actually address that by abolishing / reforming agencies like the CIA or NSA.

To be fair, Republicans have consistently opposed the income tax since the 1800s.

I feel like a lot of folks who use the label "anarchists" don't really understand the concepts behind anarchism.

There is also precedent for child labor and slavery in the U.S. Societies are far more complex now and the administration and governance of them are correspondingly more complex.

I'd be interested in knowing what the cost of maintaining infrastructure for the US prior to that date was? My gut is this is akin to thinking you could go back to the income you had when you were living with your parents, not realizing that you now have so much more that you have to take care of.

Could probably go further and ask how much it was costing to expand infrastructure? It isn't like they opted for a larger source of income for no reason?

> Prior to the federal income tax (1913)

Also during 1862-1872 and 1892-1895.

> covered by duties, tariffs, and levies

Which come with an equally long history of demonstrated problems, like being economically-inefficient and prone to corruption.

That last concern is particularly relevant given the criminality of the Trump administration: How many suitcases of cash does it take to get a special exception for/against your friends/allies?

The federal government also didn't pay for highways or a standing army then.

I'm sure there are people who want to abolish the IRS and also don't want roads or support a military. But if you can get enough of them in a room together to win a caucus I will eat my hat.

Did you say "depression"? Billionaires with assets and money love fire sales! What better way to get even further ahead! Expect a recession or depression. Those coming in don't care about the majority that gave them the only thing they needed (a vote) and only needed it once to further their gains and wealth.

The IRS has agents who train with assault rifles. The “oligarchs” do not.

The tax burden in the US already is mostly on the working class. Corporate tax rates were low and were reduced further during Trump's first term - and Biden made no attempt to raise them.

One should also remember that low minimum and median wages are "pre-burdening" the working class, i.e. constitute a different form of tilting the distribution of economic power, and access to goods and services, away from workers. And minimum and median US wages are quite low relative to the wealth of the US as a whole.

This is my expectation if this is signed by the orange idiot.

I upvoted because you were downvoted and I suspect most of HN thinks you are kidding (maybe you are or aren't, please do explain), but it appears like it was only last year they enacted a similar policy: https://somalipublicagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/SP...

The US also cancelled a large amount of their debt (previously 96% of the country's GDP was going toward servicing it): https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/06/s...

I don't have any opinion but I do have thoughts about how the US is operating on a very different scale (who will cancel our debt, and at that scale does it matter?).

That's apparently what the majority of the country wants.

I was thinking the same, I live in one of those states too.

But I expect if not done with great care, we will be in for a real bad economic ride.

Edit: The more I think about this, this could morph into a Federal Sales Tax, keeping or reducing the Income tax (for the rich of course) as it makes its way through.

Unless you abolish all federal welfare of all kinds, the rich states' people are going to subsidize the poor states' people. California doesn't need Louisiana, but almost every state east of the Rockies does. Because that's where the Mississippi River ends. And where huge amounts of oil and natural gas are harvested.

After Katrina, when I got power back, I read people online complaining vehemently about how high gas prices were. Meanwhile, I'm sitting in my house with one path out of the neighborhood that is clear of trees on the road, and no gas because there's no power to the pumps. Lucky me, I had filled up our cars as it was coming in and wasn't scheduled to work for several days after it hit.

My daily drive to get ice (which was being trucked in; it was August in the South) was the only thing I used the cars for.

Other than lottery winners, who cares? Is there some reason lottery winnings (or other forms of gambling) should be treated gingerly?

Lottery ticket costs are deductible, but only up to the amount of your lottery winnings. E.g., if you bought 1000 $1 tickets and won $12000, you could deduct $1000.