P.S. I'd love to send them both my little archive of rants (not that the rants are special, but, good grief, it seems neither Rush nor Levin have heard any of these arguments previously) --

I also read that under the Perry plan, once you go “flat” you can’t go back to the old code. On the press call with Perry’s economic team (I was invited! Yea!), one answer to why the old code option remains is because there wasn’t any way to measure the effectiveness of the acceptance of the flat tax without real world data. I got the impression that the old code would be phased out in short order.

Bwwwahhhahah: What he said!

“I also read that under the Perry plan, once you go “flat” you can’t go back to the old code.”

Ah-interesting, I didn’t realize that. So if a taxpayer files just one time using the new flat rate, he/she can never file again under the old code? Seems like it is definitely designed to phase out the old code. Another thing I can see happening later is changes made to the old code to make it less attractive for the vast majority than the new ‘flat’ code.

I would prefer they do away with the old code right away, but this is kind of a sneaky way to phase it out in relatively short order.

“Newt has a somewhat similar, possibly better plan, and is compared to Perry’s here-

http://www.newt.org/news/lets-bump-plans-comparison-gingrich-and-perrys-flat-tax-plans";

Looked it over, it does seem like Newt’s is a little better, although that is his own campaign’s spin on it, so there could be some info we’re not seeing. The next debate that covers economics should be interesting. Somehow I get the feeling Newt will be able to explain his plan better than Perry (or Cain) explain theirs.

This article doesn’t mention Perry’s plan replacing payroll taxes. Newt’s comparison chart says the Perry plan doesn’t change the payroll tax either.

Both Newt and Perry have huge deductions to create even more non-taxpayers than we have now.

My “Min Max Tax” is much better.
1) No worker-side payroll tax
2) No Corporate profits tax
3) 10% Min, 15% Max Personal income tax
a) AGI under $100K, pays 10%
b) AGI over $100K pays 15% Max
c) option: use old tax code go as low as a Min of 10%
4) One-time 10% increase in fed minimum wage defrays 10% Min tax for working poor
5) Employer 10% payroll tax applied to all labor costs plus expenditures to foreign entities
6) Tax filing date changed to Nov 1st, so people remember what government costs on election day.

(3) collects $1.4T and (5) collects $1T. Totaling $2.4T — making it revenue neutral to replace the existing income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes.

“Cain’s plan does that.”

Yes and no. Cain’s plan doesn’t tax capital gains. The reason Buffet can claim he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary is because he chooses to take almost all his income in the form of capital gains currently taxed at 15%. Under Cain’s plan, he would pay ZERO income tax. His 9% sales tax on his retail purchases would be his total tax contribution.

The best that can be said for ‘9-9-9’ is that it is better than the Perry and Newt plans.

I disagree. He implies that these things are impossible for a President to do on his own.

Yet ZERO seems to think he can simply direct his Departments to do whatever he wants by Executive Order and ignore Congress. That is how he somehow has the power to order changes to the terms of Student Loans and even complete Forgiveness of the principal owed on those loans.

By that logic, an Executive Order could simply instruct the Treasury Department to implement a different tax code or Homeland Security to spend its already appropriated budget on building a border fence.

If the Zero gets away with the Student Loan thing without being impeached by Congress for usurping its Legislative functions, then the next POTUS can do the same, right ?

The 47% who currently pay nothing are never going to file under the Perry Option. So the old code never goes away.

Positive points: Attempting to change the behemoth, confusing political tool that is the tax code

Negative points: Not attempting to get rid of the behemoth, confusing political tool that is the tax code, pushing for “revenue neutral” instead of lower taxes high growth economics and smaller federal government.

I swear it is like some of these guys and gals running for office can’t wait to use the tax code to their advantage! Bachmann is a freaking Tax Attorney for Pete’s sake, like she will admit her profession is a leech on humanity. She rails against everyone’s proposals and advances nothing of substance to change things. Romney, please, a 200 page 52 point plan that outlines steps to reform the 82,000 page tax code? Forget about it. I like Cain’s ideas but not sure I can support 999 as-is (but will take it over the current mess), and I prefer Paul’s or Ryan’s budget plans.

Here's a comparison that's worth your time.

Let's Bump Plans: A Comparison of Gingrich and Perry's Flat Tax Plans

Gingrich's Plan Far Bolder than Perry's Plan and Will Lead to Far More Robust Job Creation and Capital Investment in United States

	Gingrich	Perry	Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better
Rate	15%	20%	Gingrich has advocated for several years an optional flat tax rate of 15%, which when coupled with Gingrich’s bold entitlement and regulatory reforms, will usher in another era of booming economic growth and new, higher-paying jobs. The Perry rate of 20% is higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes proposed in his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign.
Who Gets to Make Deductions for Charitable Giving and Home Ownership??	Everyone	Families making less than $500,000/year	By creating two separate classes of taxpayers, the Perry plan buys into the same class warfare that characterizes the Obama and Romney economic plans. The fact that there are still two brackets – even under a supposed “flat tax” plan – calls into question whether this is really a flat tax at all.
State and Local Tax Deductions	Not deductible in optional flat tax plan	Deductible in optional flat tax plan	The Gingrich plan has a lower rate so less need for state and local deductions. The deduction is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher state and local taxes. Removing the subsidy would lead states to reduce state and local taxes, or adopt their own flat tax reforms. The Perry plan erodes states’ competitive advantages by making state and local taxes deductible in his optional flat tax plan.
Who Benefits from Elimination of Capital Gains Tax?	Everyone	Depends whether capital gains is long term or short term. Perry’s plan eliminates cap gains only for long term.	The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax. The Perry plan only goes halfway, and by levying up to 35% tax on short-term capital gains, it will discourage investment, venture capital, and new jobs creation.
Corporate Income Tax	12.5%	20%	The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Perry plan relies upon a short term “tax holiday,” then only drops the corporate tax rate to 20% -- only average in the developed world, and still over 20% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
Payroll Taxes	Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results	No change in existing payroll tax	Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit	Both the EITC and the Child Tax Credit are preserved in Gingrich's optional flat tax system.	No information provided.	Preserving the EITC and Child Tax Credit are critical to ensure that the optional flat tax system does not unfairly target low-income Americans. Gingrich passed the first child tax credit as Speaker in 1997, and will preserve this credit and the EITC under his optional flat tax system.
Record in Achieving Dramatic Jobs and Economic Recovery at the National Level?	Yes. Substantial. See record at right.	None.	Speaker Gingrich's Record (1995-1999): • Eleven Million New Jobs • Four Straight Balanced Budgets for the First Time Since the 1920s. • Unemployment rate of 4.2%. • Federal Spending Held to the Slowest Growth Rate Since the Early 1950s (avg. of 2.9% a year). • Venture capital investments grew 500% in three years and manufacturing sector grew to 17.43 million jobs. • Bipartisan Welfare Reform that Lifted Millions from Poverty. • Over $400 Billion of National Debt Paid Down

Download this chart as a PDF.

Gingrich's Advocacy of the Flat Tax Dates Back to 1997

From Item 2 in Gingrich's 21st Century Contract with America (September 29, 2011)
All tax filers would be given the option to pay their income taxes subject to current income tax provisions or to pay under a lower single rate of taxation with limited deductions.

Release of Jobs and Prosperity Plan Upon Announcement of Campaign (May 13, 2011)
Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year.

In his 2010 book, To Save America
To generate another lasting economic boom, we need fundamental tax reform, similar to that proposed by Steve Forbes. We should adopt the optional 15 percent flat tax with generous personal exemptions.

In his 2008 book, Real Change
This concept of an optional flat tax was developed by Steve Forbes when his flat tax campaign was undermined by criticisms that it would take away popular tax breaks. Steve Forbes and Stephen Moore have both proposed giving American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions. They call it the free choice flat tax, and it's an idea whose time has come.

In a 2008 National Review op-ed with Texas Representative Michael Burgess
An optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. This is a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect on our American economy.

In Foreword to Steve Forbes' 2005 Book Flat Tax Revolution
I believe there is a real opportunity for a similar grass roots revolution imposing the flat tax on Washington. As people learn how much money and time they can save through a flat tax they are going to demand a simple alternative to the complexity and uncertainty of the Internal Revenue Service. As people spend hours in frustrating and seemingly endless paperwork and record keeping and preparing they are going to demand the freedom for their own time offered by a flat tax....As people watch the endless maneuvering of the lobbyists and the special interests they are going to demand the fairness of a flat tax.

As Speaker of the House in 1997
There are things I would like to do like a flat tax with virtual elimination of the IRS.

**UPDATE: The chart above has been updated to reflect information about the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.

I agree that is Cain’s largest mistake. Frankly I think the FairTax is too cumbersome to work. It still requires filing every year to get your weekly rebate checks. A 23% flat sales tax will never fly among the retired or on fixed incomes and with Baby Boomers hitting retirement age right now, that means 20-30 years of fierce resistance to the 23% rate imho.

The 999 plan might fly, it has a better chance of passing. If Cain would take a second and third look at it, tighten it up a bit here or there, he could convince the country it is the better plan. The economic zones aren’t the best idea, he might be better off rebating 9% at the poverty level for those who chose to file returns (and not to those who simply want to be left alone). Cain can pitch this as “you will never have to file a tax return again” because employers will remit the 9% on their behalf, retailers the other 9%, and people are finally FREE FROM registering their incomes, deductions, spending, charity etc with the IRS. People on fixed incomes may be better off with the 9% sales tax as they never pay tax on their SS or savings or capital gains or accrued interests.

I think it has the makings of an extremely solid, well defensible, widely acceptable plan. He isn’t selling it very well and he isn’t explaining it as well as he can. It isn’t perfect (I would like to see companies be able to write off payroll expenses, because that is the only sure fire way to ensure businesses will invest in human capital as opposed to capital equipment) but otherwise it is a solid plan that is very viable.

“The 47% who currently pay nothing are never going to file under the Perry Option. So the old code never goes away.”

That’s a valid point, but you have to keep in mind that with Perry’s generous deductions of $12,500 per person, as well as keeping deductions on charitable contributions, home mortgage, and state and local tax, a large percentage of these same 47% (not sure how many but it could be nearly all of them) wont pay anything under his flat tax either.

I am convinced that tax reform is basically our last chance to preserve our freedom. It is the only way to immediately get more people as stakeholders in the tax system. Which is the only way to immediately stave off the growth of the parasite class to over 50%, at which time it would be GAME OVER.

That is the heart of where this country is, and is why we cannot afford to have anyone but a blood and guts reformer as our next president.

The next president and congress must reform our present dysfunctional, destructive state of affairs, or this country is going to fall into a long dark night of horror we can scarcely imagine.

Of the reformist candidates in the race, it appears that only Herman Cain has a chance of winning the nomination. A lot can change over the next few months, and it always does with presidential primaries, but it doesn't look likely at this point that anyone but Cain can best Romney in this contest.

I know I'm veering away from the tax issue here, but our choice of nominee is going to determine whether real tax reform comes to pass or not, in the next administration. Perry, Romney, Gingrich, have all missed the essential revolutionary imperative that lies before us. All have presented feel-good tax plans that will do nothing to fundamentally alter the way this country collects taxes.

I don't know how much bigger a wake up call you need, than the last three years of Marxist mal-administration we've endured, but apparently, even that hasn't been enough to wake up some of our candidates to the stark reality we're facing.

You ought to go ahead and fire off an email to Rush and Mark. You never know...they might see yours out of the hundreds they get.

It’s a national argument though. Someone will surely get through to them with the same points and logic.

I know I'm veering away from the tax issue here, but our choice of nominee is going to determine whether real tax reform comes to pass or not, in the next administration. Perry, Romney, Gingrich, have all missed the essential revolutionary imperative that lies before us. All have presented feel-good tax plans that will do nothing to fundamentally alter the way this country collects taxes.

Your whole post bears repreating, but especially this.

As I've said, it's one thing to sit around and analyze and analyze and analyze the side effects of a chemotherapy. But at some point you have to look up and remember, "HEY! IT SAVES THE PATIENT!"

As I see it, one thing we can do is get on the tax threads as much as possible and make sure this big idea is already brought into the mix.

And Rush and Levin’s analysis of the Perry plan, thus far, is simply looking at the initial effects and saying, wow, look how much better it makes the patient feel!

But then never looking up and realizing, but it does NOTHING to actually save the patient.

But the Perry plan doesn’t include refundable tax credits like the EITC that actually give people free money by refunding more than paid.