Newt Gingrich Serves Up New Tax Plan

Gingrich‘s BADTAX Focuses on Bartered Services

JC Wire, Washington D.C.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and current presidential candidate, today broke ranks with his Republican contenders to propose a new tax on certain business and domestic services. Aware of the conservative trend toward “no new taxes,” Mr. Gingrich sought to characterize his BADTAX (Business And Domestic Transfer And Exchange) as closing a loophole rather than introducing an entirely new tax.

Gingrich went on to explain the mechanics of this tax evasion. “It’s all well and good that a fellow fixes his neighbor’s car in exchange for baked goods; but these are transactions and should be taxed just as if he went to the auto shop or bakery. After all, those of us who have done well in life purchase and pay tax for such things. I’m afraid to say the scofflaws have generally been of the lower and middle classes – although that distinction has become rather blurred of late.”

Critics were quick to assail the plan as class warfare, pushing more taxes on those least able to pay. Denying this accusation, Gingrich claimed his tax would be applied across the board, even leveling the field. “If my peers were to share insider information from government discussions, the value of the financial gain is already subject to taxation. Why should we make an exception for the grandmother who bakes pies for her friends and relatives?”

The most controversial details of the BADTAX proposal involved marital or partner relations and the services exchanged therein. “There’s a market price for sexual satisfaction. Here in Washington it’s $500-5,000 a night! In this delicate stage of our nation’s finances, we cannot afford freebies.”

Gingrich downplayed a reporter’s suggestion that such taxation could lead some couples into bankruptcy. “Actual sexual activity is way overstated by the left-leaning Hollywood media. Taxes would only rise by 50% in the ‘40 and under’ demographic. Plus our elder citizens are financially protected. Their taxable activity is almost nil, so they’d see virtually no increase, except in metro areas like NY, DC and LA – the financial, government and entertainment sectors.”

One skeptic questioned the impact of this new taxation on the institution of marriage itself. “Let’s face it,” replied Gingrich, “Spouses are expensive. I should know! Frankly, it would have been a lot cheaper for me to hire out the services or barter with lobbyists and just pay the tax! Yet marriage remains as strong and popular as ever. Go figure!”

Further defending his plan, Gingrich claimed, “We all know the demand for such services diminishes rapidly after tying the knot. In this light, marriage will be an effective and legitimate safe haven.”

A Washington Post reporter cited a study showing the health benefits of sex three times or more weekly, suggesting the financial strain and negative health repercussions of abstinence would be bad for a nation already under siege.

“Three times a week: I wish!” retorted Mr. Gingrich. “I can cite evidence myself that shows quality is more important than quantity – or at least that’s what I’m told, often.”

Asked whether the tax could be applied to homegrown medicinal alternatives like marijuana, the former Speaker was non-committal. “It could, if that were bartered for other goods or services. If it’s just sold for cash, that would fall under current tax laws, or the DEA.”

Appearing agitated at the line of questioning, Gingrich snapped, “Let’s not get caught up in drugs and sex. I’m over that. This tax is for anything bartered and undeclared. It is for America and against those cheats who aren’t waiting for Congress to tell them their fate – the ones who just off and raise chickens in the back yard to trade eggs, the holdouts who knit sweaters to sell on the black market or start businesses in the back of their cars without reporting income. In my administration, I’m going to establish a department within the Treasury to pursue them, funded with a $5 billion budget to do the job.”

His presidential competitors quickly denounced the plan as increasing the role of government. “At a time when we need to reduce the intrusion of government into our personal affairs,” said Mitt Romney, “the Gingrich plan would move us toward a ‘1984’ scenario. We don’t want government investigators peering in our windows or pouring over our appointment calendars.”

Rick Perry weighed in, claiming such government intrusion would be un-American and bad for business. “Here in Texas, we characterize our business dealings as gentlemen with the words, ‘You scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours.’ This sort of cooperation is essential to get America working again. We don’t want any tax on back-scratching.”

Perry complained that any such plan would be fraught with problems. “How would you distinguish between untaxed transactions, like sex for the purpose of divinely mandated procreation, and taxable entertainment? Even the persons involved can sometimes lose track, you know, in the fervent pursuit of God’s will.”

Herman Cain, who exited the field recently, spoke “not as a candidate but as an ordinary US citizen. Gingrich’s plan would be a disaster for average Americans like me. If I had to pay taxes on all the unpaid services I’ve received over the years, I’d be bankrupt!”

Reported by © 2011 James Chandler, chandlercraft@gmail.com.

Miss the first press releases? Check here!

Comments are closed.