Let's Get the IRS Out of the Speech Business

Why does it have the capacity to undermine free speech in the first place?

So, the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups (or, more precisely, groups displaying a bit too much gusto for limited government) was far more widespread than its initial apology would have led Americans to imagine.

Yes, it is disturbing -- a dangerous abuse of power, no doubt. What's more disturbing -- or should be, at least -- is the fact that the IRS has the capacity to undermine free speech in the first place. Despite President Barack Obama's assurances, there are no safeguards that can be put into place to stop abuses of power.

The IRS doesn't just collect taxes. It also enforces speech codes. Americans assembling to gripe about Washington should not have to petition Washington for the right to do so. Yet Democrats (and Republicans such as John McCain) have, for a long time, advocated deputizing the IRS with deep and wide-ranging powers over free speech.

Some liberals have argued that it's reasonable for the IRS to pay special attention to the flood of tea party groups asking for 501(c)(4) applications (even though similarly motivated left-wing groups experienced little problems doing the same). In a 2012 editorial, in fact, The New York Times' editorial board praised the IRS for targeting tea party groups because they did not "primarily" engage in "social welfare," the designation used to merit tax exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

I suppose I would argue that any organization advocating unfettered free markets is advocating social welfare. Somehow I assume The New York Times has other ideas about the world. The real mystery is why the IRS should have any opinion on the matter at all.

Washington already knows that the 501(c) designations are a joke, as those involved rhetorically tiptoe around any exceptionally partisan phrases. But to engage in a concerted political effort doesn't pivot on the need for direct communication when, intuitively speaking, everyone knows what to do.

Example: It's not as if the Obama administration sends The New York Times' editorial board talking points, yet The New York Times' editorial board always seems to get it just right.

Why have so many on the left been defensive? Well, politics, of course. But there are other reasons. Just listen to the left treat tax-exempt status as a privilege bestowed by government. Taxes have morphed from a societal obligation into moral code. And our convoluted tax structure reflects this mindset, allowing politicians to favor trade and offer populist giveaways to solidify political power. Any simplification or flattening of that code would strip Washington of its most effective tool.

Any attack on the credibility of the IRS matters because soon enough, it will be forcing us to buy things, as well as regulating speech. Obamacare's unprecedented expansion tasks the IRS as dispenser of the "penalty" coercing Americans to partake in a collective health insurance scheme -- and discerning the intent of more than 40 new taxes, to boot. This will be handled by the same fine organization that was recently hit with a class action suit alleging it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans -- some 60 million medical records, including psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

Yes, reasonable people understand that government isn't systematically trying to find out what they had for breakfast or what they watch on TV. That would be as paranoid as believing that the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers have the power to control millions of voters. But rational people understand that abuse happens. If you're worried about the government's invading your privacy, there is no agency with more means to do it than the IRS.

So though this is a fine time to push the politics of scandal -- because occasionally, politics is substantive -- it would be more constructive for the GOP to push for tax and IRS reform.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Drake||

    The IRS is charged with enforcing federal tax codes - which are over 9,800 sections and millions of pages. This creates a huge opportunity for selective investigation and enforcement.

    Completely revoking our current tax code and replacing it with something the average citizen and business owner could read and understand in an hour is the only way to get it under control.

  • Rich||

    Easily done via "sequester": "If 'replacing our current tax code with something the average citizen and business owner could read and understand in an hour' is not implemented by the first of the year, the entire tax code will then be null and void."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Completely revoking our current tax code and replacing it with something the average citizen and business owner could read and understand in an hour is the only way to get it under control.

    Now that strikes fear in the heart of every Congressman and bureaucrat. That's their power, their control, their moneymaker.

  • Almanian!||

    Yep. Hence why the flat tax and related ideas a dismissed out of hand.

    "Why...bluster....we can't dispense FAVORS if we don't have deductions and exemptions and graduated rates and penaltaxes and...."

  • prolefeed||

    "Completely revoking our the largest organized crime gang's current tax theft code and replacing it with something the average citizen and business owner could read and understand in an hour nothing is the only best way to get it under control."

    FIFY.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One of the reasons I support a flat tax or something that takes away all of the tax rules is exactly this--to stop the arbitrary enforcement by the IRS and the social engineering by the government as a whole. And to save a shitload of money by reducing the size of the IRS to a couple of old ladies and a computer, and getting rid of a huge swath of tax accountants and lawyers. That's got to be a hundred billion/year.

  • AuH20||

    Hell, if they insist on progressiveness, we could make it a multi-bracket flat tax. I may be using the wrong term, but have like a flat 25% bracket, a 20%, a 15%, a 10%, and a 5%, or whatever, and there you go. That would be better than our current system.

  • Pro Libertate||

    With no deductions or other methods of manipulation. Of course, with any system, there are ways to avoid it.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Fuck that shit. No federal taxes. Taxation w/ Representation, e.g. send a bill to the states based on their representation in Congress and let them figure out how to collect it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Something like that would help rebalance the system and greatly weaken the federal government.

  • RFID||

    A few years ago when i suggested something similar to a couple of roommates (both of whom self-identified as "conservative") they said that the plan wasnt a good idea as it would put tax preparers out of a job.

  • Iris56||

    If you think Leslie`s story is really cool,, last week my son made $7179 working 10 hours a week an their house and their co-worker's half-sister`s neighbour did this for 4 months and errned more than $7179 in their spare time at there computer. use the instructions available at this link... http://www.fox86.com

  • Nicholas D. Rosen||

    I favor land value taxation. If you paid a tax based on the value of the land you occupied, the IRS wouldn't have any need to be concerned with how your business was organized, or whether you were engaged in public education or attempting to influence legislation. (Does education have no influence on legislation?)

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Completely revoking our current tax code and replacing it with something the average citizen and business owner could read and understand in an hour is the only way to get it under control.

    Yes, please.

  • Tom Beebe||

    A ONE PAGE PROPOSAL FOR REFORM OF ALL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

    The federal government shall collect no taxes other than provided in this act and make no payment except in return for goods or services rendered to it, or as provided for in this act. There shall be no federal tax any business.

    Taxes shall be assessed to free associations called households.

    The following income shall be exempt from taxation:

    An amount equal to a year's earnings at the minimum wage rate, for adults (age 20-65), decreasing 10% per year to 50% at age 15 or less, and increasing 10% per year to 150% at age 70 or greater.

    Payments for necessary health care. Health care insurance premiums may be deducted but not health care expense paid for by such insurance.

    Educational expense.

    Income saved into an account from which withdrawals for the benefit of any member of the household are taxable and those not for a member’s benefit are exempt from taxation.

    The "tax rate" shall be applied to any income over and above the deductions listed above, regardless of amount. When deductions exceed income, the government shall make payment to the household equal to the tax rate times that deficiency.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I have liberal Facebook friends who still insist that the GOP manufactured the IRS scandal. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost start to think that this applied.

  • ||

    Nah. They're just utterly integrity-less TEAM hacks who will regurgitate any TEAM narrative they are fed, and will do it with gusto. Remember, these are sheep. They're morons; they're complete partisans; and there is nothing they won't do, for they have no shame and no concern about their own integrity. They are essentially TEAM cannon fodder, and they are it with enthusiasm.

  • Almanian!||

    Yep - ^^this.

  • sulphurbottom||

    Once someone swallows the bullcrap line that TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are actually different, then it's just a short hop to accepting that OUR TEAM is always right, the OTHER TEAM is always wrong, and therefore OUR TEAM must win at all costs.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I have liberal Facebook friends who still insist that the GOP manufactured the IRS scandal.

    How? Did Dick Cheney divert power from his evil weather control machine to his evil mind control machine to make the IRS demand information from "patriot" and "tea party" groups?

  • rac||

    How about...no IRS?

  • ||

    A FB friend who describes herself as "a typical liberal" linked to that terrible CNN editorial by Paul Waldman where he gave the "social welfare" trope on this scandal.

    I responded by saying the simplest way to solve the problem was the elimination of the corporate income tax.

    After showing that she didn't understand how taxes work (she thought that the corporate income tax funded Social Security), she said "well, I just don't know who would be hurt by the elimination of the corporate income tax."

    So you see, we can't eliminate the IRS...cause people will be hurt.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The sad part is that the system is so complex and arcane that no one can truly understand it, especially those like your friend who seem to pride themselves on ignorance and trust in their betters.

  • John||

    The more complex a system is, the more arbitrary its rulers can be.

  • sarcasmic||

    Rule of Law requires that the law be something that the average person can understand and thus follow.

    Unfortunately it is the nature of legislators to amend and create new legislation in response to unintended consequences, as opposed to repeal, resulting in an ever increasingly complex system that inevitably descends into Rule of Man.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Wait wait, I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse?

  • Homple||

    Or, from the past:

    “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws”.
    ~Cornelius Tacitus, Annals (c. 116 A.D.)

  • Invisible Finger||

    well, I just don't know who would be hurt by the elimination of the corporate income tax."

    there's a very good reason why she doesn't know who would be hurt - it wouldn't hurt anyone.

  • ||

    It was late, so I didn't even bother opening the can of worms of who actually pays the corporate income tax and how those costs are allocated by the businesses.

  • prolefeed||

    Some politicians would be mighty butthurt.

  • Tom Beebe||

    The idea of ending all taxes on businesses, and financing government entirely from individual income taxes, is probably an anathema to most Americans. But consider these points:
    1. Where but from their customers, you and me, does a business get money to pay their taxes? You’re paying those taxes with each purchase, but they’re hidden from you. Wouldn’t “transparency” dictate that you see when you pay the cost of government?
    2. We decry “crony capitalism. Why? Does it give some enterprises a preference over their competition, in exchange for favors from campaign contributions to outright bribes to law makers? If you think all businesses should be on an equal footing, how else would you accomplish such a condition? If you’d like to get corporate money out of elections, how better than to eliminate incentives to buy those lawgivers?
    3. Health care for employees gives some tax subsidized health care at the expense of others. If there was no tax to avoid, it would, put all workers on the same level playing field.
    4. Having the lowest possible taxes on businesses would make the product of American labor competitive in the world market while preserving higher take-home wages.
    5. It is a far easier call for the IRS to hold all citizens to a common standard than to attempt to differentiate among businesses, unions, religions, and advocacy groups as diverse as the Sierra club or the NRA.

  • PapayaSF||

    Who would be hurt? Tax lawyers and accountants. Off-shore tax havens. Other countries generally, as businesses flocked to the U.S.

    Yes, the devastation would be a sight to behold.

  • sulphurbottom||

    How about...no IRS?

    Imagine all the pee-ee-ee-pull
    Livinnnnng for today,
    Woo-hoo-oo-oo,
    You may say I'm a dreamer....

  • Brandon||

    HuffPo still has this as it's second-lead story:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....80063.html

    Yes, Arianna Huffington, through her minions, is actually that much of a craven, deceitful, amoral cunt.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, what did you expect? Seriously, is there ANYTHING in Arianna Huffington's history that suggests, for a moment, that she is anything other than a craven, deceitful, amoral cunt?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The IRS -- an agency loved by no one and responsible for stocking the Treasury with federal tax proceeds, due under the law

    BECAUSE TEH LAW SAYS SO! I'm so thrilled that these fucking chickenshit apologists for power exist.

  • PapayaSF||

    What an ass. "Making sure that Tea Party organizations were not fudging the paperwork": That's a funny way to describe demands for lists of family members, "indirect communications" with politicians, and a bunch of other nonsense.

    And all this extra paperwork was asked because of the IRS's "limited resources," which, of course, did not impede the speedy service given to Obama's skeezy half-brother and his bullshit "charity."

  • Pro Libertate||

    So she blames rape victims, too? Just to be clear. You know, that skirt was provocative.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Funny thing is I'm old enough to remember when Arianna Huffington was basically Ann Coulter Mark I. Saying you didn't think she was the most hilarious intelligent person ever would get you dismissed as a lefty.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I saw AH debate (Victor Davis Hanson) once. Listening to her was like hearing a blabbering wall of stupidity.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It was such a joke when she was supposed to be the conservative to Al Franken's liberal on that Comedy Central show. Even then.

  • Fluffy||

    This fucking idiot just doesn't understand exactly what 501(c)(4) groups are ALLOWED to do.

    They're ALLOWED to engage in political activity.

    They're ALLOWED to engage in issue advertising.

    They're NOT allowed to do one thing and one thing only - run campaign advertising, which is defined at this point as advertising in support of a named candidate.

    Therefore, there was only one data point to "scrutinize": Had the group in question run "campaign advertising", as currently defined in case law? If the answer was No, and the form was completely filled out, the group should have been approved. Period.

    All questions aimed at getting more information about the politics of a group's members was extraneous. The groups members are ALLOWED to have policy goals. These groups are specifically permitted to have policy goals. It's one the reasons they exist.

    Every question you could conceivably ask other than "Have you run 'campaign' advertising?" would be superfluous. And everyone in the IRS chain of command who either asked or authorized additional questions deserves to have their careers destroyed, utterly.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know this actually goes all the way up, of course. Not that there will be a paper trail proving that.

  • DenverJay||

    You are probably right, and I have heard that a lot. But, OTH, anybody who works for the IRS is probably a statist fuck, and I can see one of them seizing the initiative, and deciding to attack anti-government groups all by themselves.

  • Tom Beebe||

    No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

  • Loki||

    Couldn't even make it past the first sentence:

    Lost in the latest political scandal is a simple fact: The Internal Revenue Service was acting in the public interest when it opted to train its auditing power on the Tea Party and affiliated groups.

    It's not in the IRS' charter to act "in the public interest" you fucking shitheel!!!! Their "job" is to collect tax revenue steal from the private sector to fund government so that the politician cumstains can pay off their cronies.

    AHHHHHGGGG!!!!!! *ripping hair out*

  • Almanian!||

    Yes, reasonable people understand that government isn't systematically trying to find out what they had for breakfast or what they watch on TV. That would be as paranoid as believing that the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers have the power to control millions of voters.

    Have to respectfully disagree here, David.

    Believing the latter IS paranoid, simply because the Kochs and the NRA don't reach more than some millions of people. They don't have the means to do much, relative to the government.

    The federal government, on the other hand, literally affects and interacts with EVERY one of our ~320M citizens, in multiple ways, constantly.

    And it's not a reach to think that someone in that labyrinth wants to know what I ate for breakfast. Especially when "they"/"we" start "paying for everyone's healthcare", etc. etc. We have ample evidence this is already happening (see - last week's events).

    The Kochs and NRA? Not so much.

    So - a quibble. Otherwise, fine and on point as usual. Carry on.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good point.

  • Average Dude||

    "Why have so many on the left been defensive? Well, politics, of course. But there are other reasons. Just listen to the left treat tax-exempt status as a privilege bestowed by government."

    Congratulations, Tony. You were the first person I thought of when I read that.

    Then I chastised myself for thinking about him at all.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Then I chastised myself for thinking about him at all."

    Thus sparing us the necessity. ;)

  • WomSom||

    lol kinda crazy when you think about it dude. Wow.

    www.Secure-Web.tk

  • Almanian!||

    Now there's a guy who knwos what's going gon! LOL!

    www.killtheIRS.de/anonbotsruletheworld

  • DenverJay||

    wow, fake link to sic the powers that be against anonbot?

  • John||

    The liberals are in a bind on this one. The only way to save Obama is to say that both sides do it. But saying that means politics in endemic in the IRS. Saying that pretty much admits that government can't function as a fair arbiter of things. It is not just about the IRS. If the IRS is driven by politics, it is pretty hard then to say that government can effectively do all of the wonderful things liberals think it can.

    So my guess is that liberals are going to first claim this was a the result of a few misguided individuals. If that doesn't work they will blame it on Obama. But they are never going to admit that this is an inevitable result of there being an IRS. So Obama and or those below him are going to have to take the fall.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Please...they would never blame O! It will simply be 'rogues' or maybe even Holder goes eventually at most.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Why Holder? It strikes me they could pin it on Timmah and walk away scot free.

    That is unless Temmah has something on The One.

  • sarcasmic||

    Can't blame Holder. That would be racist. Only white people can be blamed.

  • Drake||

    Pretty hard to believe that a government organization with over 100,000 full-time employees (pensions and all) - won't be biased against anti-government organizations.

  • Sevo||

    "Pretty hard to believe that a government organization with over 100,000 full-time employees (pensions and all) - won't be biased against anti-government organizations."

    You're speaking of the gov't school system?

  • Drake||

    I'm speaking about every civilian government agency everywhere.

  • DenverJay||

    and (almost) every government employee everywhere, which is why I could accept that it was rogue agents, not orders from higher up. Although Occam's razor would suggest it goes at least as high as the lowest political appointee.

  • robc||

    Its like the claim from yesterday that Obama didnt know about it because the government is too big. They are unwilling to follow the obvious conclusion of that statement.

  • John||

    Kind of like Holder not knowing that the AP was bugged. If he didn't know that, is there anything he does know?

  • Sevo||

    John, even the SF Chron is beating on Holder:
    "Eric Holder’s lame answers"
    http://blog.sfgate.com/opinion.....e-answers/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    How to cover his ass?

  • PapayaSF||

    Axelrod was actually quite Clintonian in choosing his words. He said "so vast," not "too vast."

  • robc||

    "so vast that the executive cant lead" is easily sold as "too vast".

    We can play those games too.

  • PapayaSF||

    Of course I agree with you, but I think Axelrod was trying the hedge the issue. If pressed he would probably say that the government was so vast that it needed more money and personnel to oversee itself.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's like an evil pyramid scheme.

  • PapayaSF||

    More precisely, a positive feedback loop (which, despite the name, is a bad thing).

  • Brandon||

    I should refresh more.

  • Brandon||

    "so vast that the executive cant lead" can also be (Read: Will be) spun as "the executive branch needs more funding to improve its oversight over itself." Not saying that makes any sense, but it's predictable.

  • Loki||

    TEH EVUL SEKWESTER IZ 2 BLAIM!!!!11!!! /prog-tards

  • Homple||

    As I keep saying, we have a vast government run by a half-vast community organizer.

  • DenverJay||

    lol

  • ||

    Nope I've seen someone state that a right wing group could never be a "social welfare" group because rightwingers are explicitly against social welfare. Leftwing groups are almost always for social welfare. It was pretty retarded.

  • sarcasmic||

    A right wing group could never do "social welfare" because they would be using their own money.

    True "social welfare" involves using money acquired under threat of violence.

    Just as churches aren't true charity since the funds weren't acquired under threat of violence.

    For the left violence is virtue.

  • ||

    Saying that pretty much admits that government can't function as a fair arbiter of things.

    That is only a problem for people who value logical consistency.

  • SteveE||

    So, did OfA (Organizing for America, operator of http://www.barackobama.com, and a 501(c)4 organization) get close scrutiny? It pretty clearly is much more of a political group than a "social welfare" organization that only incidentally does politics?

  • John||

    The vast majority of government employees are liberals and partisan Democrats. So the politization of government is likely not to be a threat to Democrats.

  • prolefeed||

    I think the people targeted by McCarthy back in the day would disagree.

    All the solidly Democratic AJAs in Hawaii who were interned during WWII might disagree, while still somehow worshipping FDR.

    Maybe the politicization is not an immediate threat to leftist as long as the Left (aka "Right") People hold power.

  • John||

    McCarthy was SEVENTY YEARS AGO. And McCarthy was a Senator. Last I looked the junior Senator from Wisconsin doesn't have much control over the IRS.

    Sure Republicans could try it. And when their Democratic employes refuse and leak it to the media? Good luck with that.

  • sarcasmic||

    My job takes me into the bowels of the federal government now and then, and trust me they're like 90% liberal Democrat in my experience.

  • Almanian!||

    So what's the over/under on how soon this all blows over and back to bidness as usual?

    I'd check that oddsmaking place (what was the name? Intrade) but they went out of bidness...I blame Bush

  • prolefeed||

    I think this will still matter at the margins in the 2014 elections. This will cost a few Ds their seat.

  • PapayaSF||

    The idea that the President's party would make gains in the Congressional midterms in his second term always seemed like a huge stretch (how often does that happen?), but now it's just laughable.

  • Lord Humungus||

    a few days?

    And then it's Obama full-steam ahead again. I mean the guy is a narcissist - at least in his mind, and his followers, he won't be damaged goods.

    The moderates, on the other hand, may think otherwise.

  • ||

    Watching the NBA draft combine and one of the commentators says:

    "Some of these guys will play overseas. Plenty of players leave and they make a million dollars--tax free--playing overseas."

    Uhhh, does no one understand the US govt.'s policy of worldwide taxation?

  • Alice Bowie||

    It would be so much easier to have a FLAT TAX and absolutely NO deductions, no so-called incentives, and absolutely NO exceptions for PACs, churches, jews claiming basement as synagogues, muslims claiming basement as mosques, me claiming basement as pasta god temple, etc.

    Flat Federal and State Income Tax which is apportioned to
    - SSN (Disability and pension for those below median income)
    - Health (Like the rest of the world)
    - Domestic interests

    All foreign interests like giving money to africa for aids, giving israel money to fight enemies that we give money to, foreign wars, etc...THESE things should be Charity-Based. This way, objectors-to-war don't have to contribute to wars and people that feels god kills faggots with aids don't have to give the the africa fund.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Oh, and one more thing.

    SALES TAXES should ONLY BE at the municipal level.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, Alice, dear: Most of the AIDS patients in sub-saharan africa are straight people. Most HIV transmissions in that region occur through vaginal intercourse (ie, straight sex) or birth. The evangelicals generally don't object to AIDS relief to those regions because of those facts, and provide a lot of private charity to that region.

    However, despite all that you're still right that foreign aid should be essentially eliminated.

    Thanks for proving again that it is possible to reach the correct conclusion through faulty reasoning and premises.

  • ||

    Pretty sure GWB was a big proponent of African AIDS relief.

  • ||

    Simplifying the tax code is to be highly prioritized. But a flat tax buys you nothing. Higher income earners can pay a higher percentage than low income earners without undue consequence.

    As for sales tax. I don't see why the that shouldn't be done at the state level.

  • Alice Bowie||

    A flat tax, with no deductions, exemptions, etc. will simplify the tax code for w-2 employees.

    You need only to have the tax code for businesses and eliminate capital gains concept.

    There should be NO corporate income tax. All proceeds fro business to individuals should be W-2 ONLY.

  • ||

    Ummm the undue consequence of progressive income taxes is theft.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Oh you can still have progressive flat taxes....I'm ok with that as long as they are not crazy and exceed 30%.

    As long as it is based off of W-2s and all proceeds (profit, dividends, k1 passthrus) are required to issue W2

  • ||

    That's not a flat tax. A flat tax is not progressive...that's what makes it flat.

    You're simply describing a simplified tax code with no corporate income tax. But that's still not a flat tax.

    Flat tax=one rate paid by all.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Friday morning - Congressional hearing now asking about a small businesswoman who applied for a tax exempt status for a tea party group and was then audited personally and had Department of Homeland Security and FBi visit her and interview her. On FOX and MSNBC. RSVP Commissioner replies he cannot comment on open cases and does not know anything. Says he will be "shocked" if IRS shared taxpayer info with other agencies. (Like FBI and DHS?)

  • Orthopedic Surgeon Houston||

    I always like to know some important things. So i adhere to this site for collecting some important and useful article for post and sharing with some of my friends.

  • GreenPlug.Nu||

    Yeah - this looks (based on what we know so far) like pretty bad behavior.

  • juliusaugustus||

    The IRS is a private Delaware corporation and a Puerto Rican trust.

  • CE||

    Let's Get the IRS Out of the Speech Business

    FTFY

  • Bree||

    Hi, I'm interested in commenting on articles. I'm a graduate student and I'd appreciate your help! Please take my survey!

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M7VL27K

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement