It could abolish the IRS tomorrow. Of course it has authority over the IRS.

Within the bounds of the Constitution?

You made the statement in your post:

answers to and is subservient to Congress, not the other way around.

Is the point THAT hard to comprehend? Congress is invested with the right to tax...period...end of fucking story. Congress. Not the President. Not the Judiciary. Congress. Most particularly the House. Congress. It says it right fucking there in The Constitution. Congress. Done.

they are the same. The Treasury, specifically the IRS, is invested with the power to enforce certain laws, passed by Congress, that fall under their purview. In fact, the IRS exists only by an act of Congress...The Revenue Act of 1862. Only Congress has the right, power, ability, whatever the fucking hell you want to fucking call it, to tax AND to create or completely dismantle the IRS. Am I clear or should I draw you a picture?

on their own? They could pass a bill,but Trump would have to sign it into law. If he vetoed it, do you think the current Congress would override the veto? I don't. Most people are smart enough to realize that if the IRS was abolished tomorrow the economy and the government would collapse overnight.

Until the Congress passes a bill AND the President signs it into law, the IRS remains under the Dept of the Treasury, which I believe is part of the Executive Branch.

So, no, Congress could not abolish the IRS tomorrow, no matter what David Frum says, or how much we close our eyes and wish real hard. Jesus, people, it's Civics 101.

I don’t think he meant in this political climate. I think he meant that congress could if it had the votes. Which I believe is true. And because they have that power should they ever decide to vote that way, it is appare t that they hold sway over the IRS.

I didn't see any such qualification in Frum's statement. And even if Congress had the votes to pass it, there is still the issue of a possible veto to deal with. Congress would have to have the votes to override the veto.

I, and I suppose many others, wouldn't mind seeing the IRS abolished. But not tomorrow, and there needs to be some idea about how to replace it's functions.

is in charge of the IRS, not the other way around.

If a united Congress had the WILL it COULD pass legislation abolishing the IRS, and could override a veto. He's not saying that's likely. He's merely pointing out that Congress has power over the IRS, under the constitution.

The IRS falls under the Dept of the Treasury, which is an Executive Dept.

Treasury was established by an Act of Congress, not by the Constitution. And the Congress -- which enacted the bill that set it up, and can always enact a new law -- is ultimately in charge of the Department of the Treasury, and that's why it can confirm or not confirm the Treasury Secretary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury

The Department of the Treasury (USDT)[2] is an executive department and the treasury of the United States federal government. Established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue,[3] the Treasury prints all paper currency and mints all coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint, respectively; collects all federal taxes through the Internal Revenue Service; manages U.S. government debt instruments; licenses and supervises banks and thrift institutions; and advises the legislative and executive branches on matters of fiscal policy.

the Treasury Dept., the mechanics of collecting taxes, nor administering such matters.

Further, the 16th Amendment, which specifically authorized the income tax, states:

He'd love it. Havoc.

Plus he would never want to tell his base that he's the one who STOPPED the end of the IRS.

But as others have said, the tweet isn't about doing it, it's about who is answerable to whom. Congress created the IRS, Congress has the authority (if not the will or the votes) to un-create it.

It's just a tweet, don't expect enumeration of the finer points.

Exactly. Which means we're both making the same point, so I don't know why it sounds like we're disagreeing or why you're sighing!

Trump's base hates the IRS and the Federal Reserve. If Trump did anything to eliminate either of those entities, all over America there would be irrepressible spontaneous demonstrations where workers would march out of factories and offices and parade through the streets with banners voicing their gratitude to Trump for the new, happy life which his wise leadership would have bestowed upon us.

I guess Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller will get exactly what they wanted - to see the entire government blow up.

reason why this might not be feasible?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus

federal court, the head of the IRS would have to respond. Possibly DOJ would try to object/intervene, but if I am not mistaken, the applicable statute does say that the IRS "shall" release the returns to the applicable party (House Ways and Means committee). Or am I totally out in left field?

Everyone hates what works.

A progressive tax like we have now is the most common tax system used in developed countries around the world. A flat tax is based upon a fantasy that a millionaire and a minimum wage earner can both afford to pay the same tax percentage their salary towards the public treasury.

Flat taxes would mean a windfall to the wealthy and business and investment companies. Wage earners would get taxed on every dollar earned, but for wealthy people who earn a living in dividends, capital gains and other investment income, their money is generally exempt from tax.

Sure, it sounds fair, but the flat tax impacts lower income workers much harder. If a household making $1,000,000 was taxed at 10% the would be $100,000 in taxes due and the the they could still enjoy a posh livestyle without selling off grandma's antique rocker. A household making $10,000, would suffer a severe financial crisis after paying their "fair" 10% tax of $1,000. The working class family now has less income to the purchase the same amount of goods as before.

Do some more investigating on this topic and you'll see why Dems don't support a flat tax.

Nothing proposed by any of the candidates so far will raise nearly enough money to pay for the programs we all discuss here. Nothing. We see huge numbers followed by "over 10 yrs". we all know any projection of income or savings over 10 yrs NEVER materializes as projected. We know how big our economy is, so we'd know pretty close what a sales tax would bring in.
Not to mention finally taxing all the hidden income from millions of workers.

You make between X & Y, you pay Z. Between A & B, you pay C
And start after a "minimum income" is hit. Just for example, anything over 20k begins your tax.
And we still need a sales tax on top of it.
I'm just going with what works & is working elsewhere. Because what we currently do isnt working.

As i said before, NO plan put forth by ANY of the candidates will raise nearly enough money. Not even AOCs "over 10M" tax.

They conflate "flat tax" with "simple tax".

You can have incredibly complex tax rules and then charge a single tax rate.

You can have no exemptions at all and charge 10 different tax rates.

And any idea of the actual revenues it would bring?
The biggest issue i see is that we all look to Europe & the Nordic countries for many of the programs we want, but we're not willing to fund it using the systems that those countries use.
Studies have shown that, while people dont want to pay taxes, they're much more willing to pay if they think everyone ELSE is paying too.

I would have thought we'd had enough of this shit by now