Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perry Commits to Flat Tax, Reforming Entitlements
The Weekly Standard ^ | October 19, 2011 | Daniel Halper

Posted on 10/19/2011 11:05:30 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Las Vegas - In a brief speech this morning at the Western Republican Conference, Texas governor Rick Perry announced that in six days he would reveal an “economic pro-growth package that will create growth” and encourage investment in America. The plan will involve major tax reform, entitlement reform, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, an abolishment of earmarks, and a recommitment to energy exploration in the United States.

“Our long term growth requires a fundamental tax reform,” Perry said. Therefore, his plan “starts with scrapping the three million words of the current tax code—starting over with something simple: a flat tax.”

“I want to make the tax code so simple that even Timothy Geithner can file his taxes on time,” the Texas governor said, taking a jab at the treasury secretary who had major errors in his tax returns that were revealed after he was nominated by President Barack Obama for his present job.

“The second part of my plan involves the serious commitment to spending, realizing alternatives” to the path taken by Europe, Perry said. In this vein, the Texas governor went on to affirm his commitment to “reforming entitlements, preserving those commitments to those who are on Social Security … and those approaching the age of retirement.”

Perry did not give further details on what the new flat tax rate would be (or how it might work) or on how he would reform entitlements.

On the balanced budget amendment, Perry committed to campaigning in all fifty states, if necessary, in order to get the provision added to the Constitution.

And he promised to end earmarks: “My plan is to end earmarks for good.”

In revealing tidbits of his economic plan, Perry played up his anti-establishment credentials.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: budget; economy; entitlements; perry2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-176 last
To: itsahoot

They have to pay the tuition. (In Texas)

Keep in mind that the 12-16K who qualify under the in-state tuition law are undocumented and documented immigrants.

The approx. amount paid by the above runs $ 30 million/year.
That is what they PAY.

Now some do get approved for aid. The amount of aid for the above mentioned 12-16K students is between
$ 10million and $ 20 million/year.

So Texas Universities come out ahead approx.
$ 10 million to $ 20 million per year.

And also, everyone in Texas including illegals pay taxes because we have a sales tax here but no income tax.

So, everyone in Texas pays taxes when they purchase most anything except food and Bibles. Legal, illegal, immigrant, Texas natives, Texas move-in or anyone visiting from anywhere.


151 posted on 10/19/2011 7:05:02 PM PDT by TexMom7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
...non-Texan US citizen and an illegal alien is certainly free.

I am not sure why we are having trouble with this concept. The "illegal" part has NOTHING to do with "residency". If you have been a resident of Texas (and thus paying Texas Sales Tax and Texas Property Tax) for the past three (3) years, you receive in-state tuition ... regardless of what the people in D.C. reflect in your immigration file. Period.

Any "non-Texans" who choose to move here for 3 years can also qualify for in-state tuition.

152 posted on 10/19/2011 7:06:24 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
The 9-9-9 plan moves part of the tax burden onto the sale of goods by foreign businesses and would dramatically re-orient the incentives in our economy back in favor of capital-intensive domestic manufacturing jobs and in favor of saving and investment.

How does this happen exactly? Please explain.

Is Cain suggesting that all of America is now an 'economic development zone', or does that just apply to inner-city ghettos?

Personally, I think you are being a little optimistic in your economic assessment.

153 posted on 10/19/2011 7:13:21 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Abbeville Conservative
Cain or Newt. The rest will get crushed by Obama.

Sorry, I am not going to fall for the "only McCain can defeat Obama" mantra.

That was so 2008.

154 posted on 10/19/2011 7:19:21 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13
How does this happen exactly? Please explain.

By moving some of tax that we now collect from a corporate income tax and instead collecting that in the form of a tax on the sale of goods, it shifts the tax burden from only domestic businesses to be shared by both domestic and foreign businesses.

Let's say for purposes of example that today the government raises $20 from corporate income tax on domestic television manufacturers (and pretending for purposes of example that we still make those products).

And now let's shift half of the burden onto a sales tax on the sale of the televisions themselves to consumers.

In the new scenario, the government only collects $10 from the corporate income tax from the US manufacturer instead of $20 as before. This means the US manufacturer has more flexibility to lower its prices and still make a profit.

Assuming the domestic manufacturer sells one television and the foreign manufacturer sells one television, the $10 that was shifted over onto the sales tax is charged $5 on the television sold by the domestic manufacturer and $5 on the television sold by the foreign manufacturer.

The consumer is only concerned with the after-tax price. The foreign manufacturer today has a number of advantages in labor, environmental, currency manipulation, and so forth.

The Cain tax plan helps to level the field by allowing a US manufacturer to be able to compete at lower prices and placing a tax burden at the point of sale on goods by both domestic and foreign manufacturing.

Who knows, under this plan we might even see television manufacturing begin again in the US if we combine the tax plan together with lifting regulatory burdens.

155 posted on 10/19/2011 7:27:03 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

A flat tax is the first intelligent thing to come out of Perry in a decade.


156 posted on 10/19/2011 7:28:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txroadkill
.


Thanks for your response ... not being a Texas resident ... and Rick Perry not properly explained this ... I see where I have been mistaken ..


My only two closing remarks are:

1) Why are the Texas GOP Aggies upset at Rick Perry for this ?

2) Rick Perry needs to CLEARLY explain these details ... because on the surface he appears to be PRO-ILLEGAL-IMMIGRANT ...



Thanks again,


Patton-at-Bastogne



.
157 posted on 10/19/2011 7:35:32 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

There would need to be many scenarios run to validate your assumptions on this.

In lowering the domestic, corporate income tax from 39% to 9%, we would also be eliminating corporate tax deductions such as depreciation, labor, benefits, etc. Indeed Cain touts his plan as ‘revenue-neutral’, and I do not see a significant shift between domestic corporate costs and foreign corporate costs.

Companies choose to locate plants in various places for many reasons. Why else would so-called ‘foreign-car’ makers such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have so many plants here in the USA?


158 posted on 10/19/2011 7:56:57 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: casinva

It’s a compliment. This is big-boy ball, planned out like a musical score.


159 posted on 10/19/2011 8:03:03 PM PDT by magritte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13

There is no question that for a capital-intensive business like manufacturing there would be a benefit from the Cain plan. (The Cain plan does NOT eliminate deductions for cost of capital investments (depreciation) but it does eliminate deductions for labor costs.)

“I do not see a significant shift between domestic corporate costs and foreign corporate costs”

In my example of the $20 in tax, there was a shift of $5 of tax onto the goods sold by the foreign corporation.

In principle, in the aggregate under the Cain plan, ALL OF THE SALES TAX collected on goods sold by foreign manufacturers is a shift of tax onto the foreign businesses, since consumers are making decisions based on after-tax prices.

Of course there is a matrix of factors businesses consider in deciding where to manufacture. But OBVIOUSLY it helps to give them more of an economic advantage to doing so domestically under the Cain plan.


160 posted on 10/19/2011 8:07:03 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: TexMom7

And also, everyone in Texas including illegals pay taxes because we have a sales tax here but no income tax.

So, everyone in Texas pays taxes when they purchase most anything except food and Bibles. Legal, illegal, immigrant, Texas natives, Texas move-in or anyone visiting from anywhere.

Yeah but illegals dont always pay federal taxes and Texas receives tons of federal dollars which they then can use for illegals...Second an education is a magnet and college is not required by the USSC.


161 posted on 10/19/2011 8:15:45 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

But we also have to consider the differences in pre-tax prices. To carry on your example:

The foreign TV sells for $100, or an ‘after-tax’ cost of $109. If the US TV sells for $150, the ‘after-tax’ cost just went to $163.50.

Assuming the US maker had a $25 profit (17%) in that $150 TV, that company could lower its price to $141.50 and get the same after-tax benefit as the pre-999 plan of $150. (assuming 40% of the $25 profit less the new 9% rate). The ‘after-tax’ cost of that US TV is now $154.24 —still considerably higher than the foreign TV’s after tax price of $109.

Sorry, please see handle. Some say it’s a 12-step process, but I cannot help myself at times. :-)


162 posted on 10/19/2011 8:18:27 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

No sales tax on Bibles? Interesting. Is that only Christian bibles or does it include other holy books like the Torah?


163 posted on 10/19/2011 8:21:59 PM PDT by magritte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13

Well obviously it depends on just how big the present cost difference is between the domestic and the foreign manufacturer compared to the benefit of the tax plan.

I was going to make a comment on your handle when you seemed to deny that there was any benefit at all in favor of domestic manufacturers by changing over to the Cain tax plan but didn’t.

Anything that improves the environment for domestic manufacturing helps. Companies and industries will be at different points on the cost curve relative to foreign competitors. For some it might make the difference, for others, not enough.

And of course we shouldn’t only be fixing the tax code. We need to also lower regulations and weaken the power of unions and fix trade abuses among other things to help US industry.


164 posted on 10/19/2011 8:25:57 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
We need to also lower regulations and weaken the power of unions and fix trade abuses among other things to help US industry.

I certainly agree with this statement which is one of the reasons I like Perry --he has a long, solid track record of fighting the EPA.

As for the example, in my weakness, I even went an 'ran the math' with a US TV originally priced at $110. The number comes out to $113 vs. $109 on the foreign so yes, depending on the scale there might be a shift. I am just not sure it would be significant enough to bring industry here. It seems that the two products would have to be really competitively-priced (w/i 5%-10%) for the taxes to make a difference.

165 posted on 10/19/2011 8:37:32 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Texas is a Donor State. We pay more in Federal Taxes than what we received back.


166 posted on 10/19/2011 8:39:41 PM PDT by TexMom7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I still oppose radical changes to the tax code, preferring an incremental approach that won’t disrupt the economy and screw everybody who actually PLANS for their financial future.

So you support the continued existence of the progressive income tax, a central plank of the Communist Manifesto?

How long would you take to ultimately eliminate it?

Sorry, color me extreme. Abolishing the Tyrannical income tax would disrupt the economy: it would usher in an era of unprecedented economic growth, opportunity, and prosperity, and make people more Free, coincidentally.

The sooner the income tax is eliminated altogether, the better. And as far as being responsible for our problems, it is a huge negative burden on the middle class, affecting exactly those people who are responsible for most of the hard work, job creation and entrepreneurship which occurs in this country. Its harmful effects can hardly be overstated.

167 posted on 10/19/2011 8:42:40 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexMom7

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/22/rachel-maddow/msnbc-host-rachel-maddow-says-texas-routinely-rece/


168 posted on 10/19/2011 8:48:50 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13

how about shipping?


169 posted on 10/19/2011 8:50:02 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

(from the article you linked)

“But by 2011, when stimulus funds dry up, she speculated that Texas will revert to being a “donor state.”


170 posted on 10/19/2011 9:09:50 PM PDT by TexMom7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: magritte

You make a very good point, magritte! This is a tough job - a tough job to get the nomination, then a tough job to get elected, and then an even tougher job to be The President of The United States of America. It will take an experienced boy playing his (or her) best game of all.

PS, the “musical score”... are you a musician? We are a musical family but also Christians, so we combine them and watch for how God “orchestrates” life to create a beautiful masterpiece when all the parts come together. Sometimes you don’t see it all coming into place and then one day you look around and see the Great Composer has created something beautiful.

Looking forward to see what God is doing now to get us to where HE wants us to go in this nomination and election, and the good thing is, no matter what, He’s got the pencil to write the score!


171 posted on 10/19/2011 9:49:19 PM PDT by casinva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: jla

Hey there, jla! What a fun day! And Romney had a bad night, and worse day with his bad ad taken down. Not bad for a tenant farmer’s kid, eh?


172 posted on 10/19/2011 10:20:15 PM PDT by RitaOK (TEXAS. It's EXHIBIT A for Rick, who needs to pound the fiction flackers back into the Stone Age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13

It has to do with the fact that they are being rewarded for illegal activity. I’m not sure why the Perrygasmics are having trouble with this concept. Perhaps if I explain it another way it might make sense. Imagine you (owner A) are part owner of a vast apartment complex. Another part owner (owner B) decides to rent out one of the units for much less than the going rate, exactly equal to owner B’s part of the rent, not sending any to the other owners. Is it any wonder that owner A wants nothing to do with owner B?


173 posted on 10/19/2011 10:51:18 PM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

I think that actual issue is easier to understand than your analogy. Owner A is supposed to be upset because Owner B decides to rent out his units cheaper?

I understand the issues with illegals. We hate that there are illegals here. We hate that the federal government refuses to send them back, is not doing their job. We hate that the government forces states to educate the illegal children of illegal immigrants in our schools for 12 years.

And we hate that when they graduate, the federal government doesn’t kick them out, but lets them stay here in our country, and get jobs, and earn a living.

What you need to understand about those on the other side of the issue from you is that nothing Texas does about college tuition will make ANY difference on those things we all wish were different.

Texas has these kids. They are here, they aren’t going away. They are educated, americanized, and living in Texas. They are smart enough to go to college. If they lived in Mexico and applied for college, they’d get accepted, and get student visas and be here legally.

But they are already here, in Texas. If they don’t go to college, they will take low-wage jobs in the state, or become delinquents, and I guess if they commit a serious crime the feds might deport them after the fact. So Texans, for whatever reason, decided they would rather help those kids get educated. They aren’t doing it with your money. They aren’t sending illegals into your state. They aren’t taking your jobs. Heck, they aren’t really even giving Texas tax dollars to them.

IN exchange, Texas gets a higher-educated class of illegals, they get extra tuition money to help run their colleges, they get illegals off the streets for 4 years. Maybe some Texans get to feel good about helping children to live happier and more productive lives regardless of what country they were born in.

After all, Americans are not looking to deny kids from other countries a great education. We wish all children could reach their full potential — just some of us wish they would do it in their own countries, or come here legally.

To these people who oppose your view, they don’t understand why you think you should dictate to them what they do with their own money. They don’t understand why you would sentence smart, americanized 18-year-olds to a life less productive than they are capable of, just because you are upset at the federal government for not handling the illegal problem. They see children, illegal through no fault of their own, who want what every human wants — a fulfilling life of acheivement to their greatest potential.

Since they see no value in your plan to deny them this education, and they see it costs you nothing, but you want to make THEM stop supporting it, they may think you are being unreasonable.

Me? I could care less what Texas does. I opposed this in Virginia, where I live. I certainly wouldn’t reject a good candidate for President for a reason as stupid and trivial as this.


174 posted on 10/20/2011 8:37:49 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I might not reject an otherwise good candidate for this if it were the sole troubling issue. However, we are talking about Perry here, and not this proverbial good candidate.


175 posted on 10/20/2011 8:43:19 AM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Perry hasn’t been running for a year or more like Cain has, so it’s not surprising he didn’t have a plan

Yah. As the longest serving Governor of one of the largest States, he'd have been way too busy to give much thought to needed changes to our tax code.
I guess you don't need to have ideas before you run for the office of POTUS.

176 posted on 10/20/2011 2:12:28 PM PDT by Riodacat (And when all is said and done, there'll be a hell of a lot more said than done......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-176 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson