Posted on 12/10/2007 8:09:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Gigot: Well, Fred Thompson has his flat tax, and Mike Huckabee has his fair tax. But who's got the better idea, and what are the other GOP presidential hopefuls proposing? Here with a closer look at the candidates' tax plans, Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor Dan Henninger, assistant editor James Freeman, Washington columnist Kim Strassel and senior economics writer Steve Moore.
So, Steve, Fred Thompson has embraced this so-called voluntary flat tax plan. You like it, I kind of like it. Tell our viewers why.
Moore: Well, the flat tax is happening all over the world. There are now 20 countries that have flat taxes. The United States is not yet one of them. Fred Thompson says let's have a flat tax; let's overcome the political opposition to this, all of the special interest groups that try to protect their deductions and carve-outs, by essentially telling the American people, You can have this voluntary flat tax. If you want to stay in the old system and keep all your deductions, you can do that. If you want a simple plan with a postcard return, you opt into that. Paul, I think if the people had that option, the vast majority of Americans would take the flat tax.
Gigot: And under the Thompson proposal, there would be two income tax rates, 10% and 25% rate, and, what, a $39,000 family allowance for a family of four, and that would vary depending on whether you were single or how many children you had. And the 25% rate kicks in at $100,000 of income. Is that right?
Moore: For a couple, that's right.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The best way to promote any of these tax plans that go outside the status quo. Find a country that was similar to ours under their old plan, who implemented a flat or fair tax, and show the benefits it brought to the majority of the people of that country.
I thought FR did not get involved in what other countries do. This is tragic that we are looking at other countries to fix our problems. This is so Democratic that I can’t believe that Fred or anyone else is discussing it. I guess next we will welcome socialized medicine because the rest of the world has it. Wake up!!!
Now he is on the national stage, and throws little quips out “I want to put the IRS out of business” at debates and some gullible people actually believe for one he would do it, and another that Democrats like Rangel and entrenched Republicans will let him do it.
Huckabee’s history show no fiscal hawk, why believe him now?
If Fred ain’t a conservative, I don’t know who is.
That’s one area Ron Paul is great in.
Too bad he’s dead wrong on so many others.
Agreed.
These spammers are pathetic.
Well, it lacks the other aspect of what I would call a “Flat Tax”, in that it still excludes huge chunks of income with its standard deduction.
The result is that a family of four can earn $49K and contribute NOTHING to the running of the government that protects their freedoms. They can even vote for government giveaway programs to their hearts’ content, secure in the knowledge it won’t cost them a dime.
If I were Fred, I’d be honest with the American people and say, “Every American should be willing to pay some taxes to support the government that provides so much to ensure their safety, security, and freedoms. To that end, I propose eliminating all deductions and using a three-bracket income tax with very low tax rates. Those rates would be as follows:
(1) 5% on income up to the poverty level,
(2) 10% on income between poverty level and median income,
(3) 15% on all income above the median
Zero corporate income tax, all capital investment expensed in the year spent, with all net corporate income imputed to the shareholders”
Contrary to what Dems believe, the problem with tax revenues is not that a relatively few taxpayers with high incomes aren’t paying enough. The problem is that there are huge numbers of taxpayers at the low end that pay nothing, but vote for more government spending.
I agree. It's not nearly as impressive as some make it out to be. Unless the Sixteenth amendment is repealed first, I cannot support a new tax system.
Not good enough. Unless he eliminates the sixteenth amendment (which would be next to impossible), there is no law that would prevent the congress from inacting an income tax.
As long as the sixteenth amendment is the law of the land, it's better to reform the income tax than to keep the status quo and invent a new tax.
A family of four living on $49K per year is probably spending every dime, after SS and Medicare taxes, on the necessities. If you believe that consumers pay all taxes, then they are paying their fair share.
The problem is that any embedded taxes they pay are invisible to them and do not affect their voting habits. As long as they don’t see their visible taxes like income tax going up, they’ll vote for more government give-away programs.
If everyone had to pay a flat 10% (no deductions) to pay for government general fund spending, and some new welfare program was proposed that would require everybody’s tax rate to go up to 12%, then the vote would likely be “NO”. If half the people have all of their income exempted, then they’ll vote “YES” because the tax rate doesn’t matter to them anymore. The tax rate could be 90% on income above the standard deuction, and that family earning $49K won’t care because they aren’t affected.
The more income disparity increases, the less likely that is to happen as long as those with low incomes vote.
“The more income disparity increases, the less likely that is to happen as long as those with low incomes vote.”
What is inherently wrong with income disparity ? Everyone has different talents. Why shouldn’t you expect different results ? If wealth is being acquired illegaly, then the solution is to enforce the law, not to redistribute wealth. Redistribution will take from those that did nothing wrong as well as those that did.
The family earning $49K likely wouldn’t qualify for any sort of welfare benefits, so the jump from 10% to 12% would get a “NO” vote from them.
Those actually eligible for a welfare program would amount to less than 15% of the voters, so there will not be enough of them to vote to take money from the majority.
I am concerned about the growing number of middle-class voters that end up with no income tax bill and become apathetic about containing government waste and nanny state spending.
I am also concerned about the growing number of people who participate in the economy and yet fall below taxable limits - I'm just not sure that figuring out a way to make them pay income taxes is the answer.
What would you suggest ? You can’t disenfranchise them and stop them from voting for wasteful government. Besides making them pay taxes, what other disincentives to such voting would you recommend ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.