I agree Perry’s plan is great. So is Cain’s. So is Newt’s. Like Rush said, all of these plans and all of these people are sooooo much better than what we have now.
I guess Cain’s 9-9-9 plan just became chopped liver?
The best representation-of-my plan is this postcard
Yep, have always liked that idea.
Hey, it’s a great plan. All the limousine liberals can pay the higher rates they’re clamoring for and the rest of us can pay the lower rates. Everybody’s happy.
Sorry, no sale.
I committed to voting for Cain when I first learned about him in April of this year. I never heard of him before.
I am still committed to voting for him for the following reasons.
1. He knows what it’s like to have a REAL job. I keep hearing about “political experience”. I DO NO WANT someone who’s resume consists only of government jobs.
2. He knows what it’s like to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and become successful.
3. He is a REAL American, a descendent of African slaves, not a descendent of African slave-traders, like the Community Organizer (euphemism for Communist Activist) currently occupying the White House.
4. I have every confidence that he will surround himself with a brilliant braintrust that will put this country on the right footing and maybe even turn us back from the pit of sexual deviancy, depravity and depredation into which we have been sliding.
5. He is FERVENTLY pro-Life.
6. He is FERVENTLY pro-Israel.
7. He is FERVENTLY pro-American.
I’m not worried about his tax plan right now. It’s little more than a probe, a feeler, at this point. I’m certain that he will do what is right for the people in this country.
I just can’t get behind Perry. The guy reminds me of the “Bounty Man” - you know, the paper towel guy. I prefer a real man who endured hardships in his life, overcame them and became successful. That is the American Dream. Did Perry overcome any hardships?
Rush, you are backing a loser candidate.
Perry Plan-Limbaugh Likes Ping
A flat tax is the proper and fair way to tax. But neither Perry’s nor Cain’s are a true flat tax, and Rush is wrong, because all of these first but weak attempts at a flat tax are flawed.
A flat tax has to be on ALL income, not just wages. The wealthy don’t give a damn about the tax rate on wages - they don’t get wages. They get their income hidden in other ways, like capital gains, dividends, stock options, roll backs into the companies they own, benefits like company cars and insurance that you would pay for but they get gratis.
The only fair way is a flat tax on all income. Whatever you get between Jan 1 and Dec 31 is income - wages, gifts, stock options, dividends, capital gains - it’s income. You pay a flat rate on that. No deductions. None.
You exempt some amount of income, like the first $20,000, and pay tax on everything else. That gives the legitimate poor a break for basic essentials. That exemption defeats the flat tax being a regressive tax argument of the liberals.
The rich would thus pay a lot more taxes and wouldn’t have a place to hide income like they do now. The poor would pay the flat tax on any income above $20,000 - for example, on an income of $30,000 and a flat tax of 15%, they would pay $1500 tax on a total income of $30,000.
The rich guy getting an income of $1,020,000 would pay $150,000 in taxes - 100 times what that poor guy pays. How can the democrats complain about that? And Warren Buffet would be paying a lot more taxes than his secretary.
And if corporations by law are entities to be treated as persons, then they too have to be subject to the same flat tax. Otherwise the corporation becomes one more place to hide income.
Of course, the IRS, tax lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants would be out of a job, but they are all parasite occupations that don’t create a damn thing anyway.
A true flat tax would be a three line IRS 1040:
1: Enter last years total income from all source:s _____
2: Enter the greater of $20,000 or $10,000 times each dependent: ______
3: Take 15% of Line 2 and enter here: ________ This is your tax.
Thanks Kaslin!
I missed the last half of that.
GREAT stuff.
Bump!
Kaslin:
Sorry! I didn’t see yours when I started getting a post together and posted this a second time. 3 minutes difference!
I can ping a mod and let them know to pull mine.
What name would I add to a post in my thread to tell them mine is a second thread?
Or if someone knows what to do and wants to do it, here is the second thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2797806/posts
Since you got one started first, I would like to honor yours.
Thanks.
My reaction to Rick Perry's new-old plan is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This is not a new idea. This is not something that is proposed for the first time. A flat tax has been introduced in the past, and it's been rejected because it overwhelmingly blows a hole in the deficit. Rick Perry isn't proposing anything to address that. How would he pay for this?
What the hell does she think her boss has been doing for the last 2 1/2 years. I hope Perry has this video and turns it in to a commercial. Moronic.
While I think LOWER (than now) tax rates on capital gains would be good for boosting capital investment, I do not think those rates - sufficient to honor the benefits of capital investments - need to be zero; I don't even think they need to be lower than rates on wage income, in a really flat overall lower tax rate system that would apply to ALL "income", no matter how earned, was to be taxed in the first place.
To be truly transformational, the tax rates need to lower, flat and not only flat but applied universally (all types of income without exception).
Perry plays politics with "older Americans" as well; promising to do away with any income taxes on Social Security benefits.
Why? Is it a true reform that is equitable, that would provide equal tax treatment with other "pensions"? No. He's simply trying to buy votes of seniors and relying on the general public's ignorance of how retirement income (from the private sector) is taxed.
When it comes to a private pension, what is generally held as NOT taxable pension income is that portion of the pension payments that can be said to be attributable to contributions the individual made from income that was already taxed, before the pension contribution was deducted/withheld from it. The rest is generally considered taxable.
In other words that portion of the pension derived from the employer's contributions and the individual's "tax sheltered"/"tax deferred" contributions is taxable; and the rest is (generally) not.
Then everyone screams, when it comes to Social Security: "But why should I be taxed on my Social Security benefit. I was already taxed when I paid into it."
That's a half truth, because at least one half of what was contributed to Social Security (in MOST cases) was contributed NOT by the individual, but by the employer.
Rick Perry says no one's Social Security should be taxed, but he does not address how we are going to fill the funding hole in Social Security filled now by all the IOUs (debt) that will come due to pay all the baby boomers; which will be a period in which it will be hard for general revenue to NOT be needed to (increasingly) help fill that hole; but Perry wants to promise seniors they won't have to share in the sacrifice needed to fill it; even though on an equal standard with private pensions, one half of a Social Security benefit would be part of gross taxable income, before any exemptions, exceptions or deductions.
If a truly transformational system would be "fair", flat, and treat similar types of income the same, why should Social Security NOT be taxed on the same basis as private retirement income; exempting that portion attributable to what the individual contributed and taxing that portion attributable to what the employer paid in.
Some will now scream: "But some people have only Social Security and not the highest benefit amount either!!" But sense everyone is proposing ZERO tax for some income levels (no matter how that income is made) then wouldn't low income Social-Security-only recipients fall into such exemptions also, without a general exception for all Social Security needed to do that (for everyone, no matter their income).
That is again another place where I think Perry is playing soft, playing political, failing to be truly transformational, and as the RINOs and Liberals have done in the past, attempting to start off a new system with certain tax privileges written in from day one, which will only lead to a process of admitting that "exceptions and deductions" ARE the way to write a tax code; and the slippery slope starts all over again; the lobby for new exceptions will begin the day after the new code goes into place; and why not, it will start out with politically favored exceptions; driven by Presidential candidates trying to buy votes and promising to keep the promises with which they bought those votes - instead of truly transforming the system.
Good to see Rush, a true conservative, giving an honest look at a true conservative tax plan.
Unlike Rush and Levin I was very disappointed by Perry’s speech today. Yes, his plan would be far better than what Obama is doing. However adding a new optional tax, letting government employees out of Social Security while keeping the rest of us trapped, and hoping to balance the federal budget by 2020 are very, very disappointing and definately not conservative ideas.
I understand that whatever a candidate proposes will get minced and watered down by Congress but that is precisely the reason to propose bold and drastic changes, not tinker with the rates and deductions. An optional flat tax is not a flat tax, it’s a 1040EZ that does little to address the inequalities in our tax codes. To be fair I like Perry’s standard deductions a lot better than Herman Cain’s “Empowerment Zones.”
Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum.
Snow White and the seven dwarfs. Wake me in 2016 if I happen to live that long.
Not an electable conservative in the bunch.
I like the Perry tax plan.
Still don’t like Perry though!!!