Posted on 11/02/2015 2:04:51 PM PST by gwgn02
Why?
This is good advice. His tax plan just doesn't add up without making predictions that are unlikely.
And as I posted above: I'm writing this as someone who LIKES Cruz.
I can easily do the math and point out the flaws in it. Cruz's opponents on both sides of the aisle will destroy it.
> My only point is I think everyone should pay something.
Why? No one paid anything for more than one hundred years and we built the greatest most prosperous nation in history.
Income tax is a cancer.
AND, no refunds!!!!!
I hope wages are deductible. But I don’t know that for sure. That would be the biggest thing in making this not a VAT. But then, I’m a little doubtful about the revenue-raising ability of his plan. I really don’t want to add a trillion dollars per year to the deficit like the trump plan.
On the plus side, a lot more folks will have to pay than the trump plan, which I view as a positive. And it does away with the extraterritorial tax of American corporate profits. Which will help reduce inversions.
trump’s plan, to combine a lower rate with a mandatory corporate tax on overseas profits is just a terrible power grab and will have the opposite effect that trump desires, to stop corporations from fleeing America.
Because if some people don’t need to pay, than they won’t care if taxes are raised, and so there’s no mental connection between taxes and spending.
So, free college for everyone! Free healthcare for everyone!! Rent subsidies for everone!! Guaranteed income for everyone!! We’ll let the rich pay for it.
Unless you can get rid of the income tax, everyone should pay it.
And the prospects for getting rid of it right now are low.
Const. issues? The 16th is already as illegal and unconst. as you CAN get. Anti-4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 13th....Let alone allows a plethora of black/gray areas (do the poor/retired not use services? Yet they pay [almost] $0).
Sorry, no more tiered slave tax on the WORKERS/PRODUCERS, and no more HAND-OUTS to those that never paid penny ONE into the coffers from which the govt giveth.
Kill off the income tax, kill off illegal/uncon. programs/dept/agencies/etc., balance the remaining budget and THEN talk about paying for what’s left (which, IMO, should be paid by the States, in turn by the People through biz...so they should be furthest from the govt at all levels, and closer to the watchful eye).
Enough with the slice here, nip there, tuck...
Why drag people into hell? Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
You left off some bigger PROS to a Fair Tax’ish plan:
- Completely VOLUNTARY
- Encompasses EVERYONE (OK, *should*...It’s my one big peeve)
- No 2x, 3x taxation
- MANDATES govt live within its means (as they should the Constitution which, IMO, = even LESS than 22%)
Sorry to rain on your parade, but a Constitutional Amendment cannot be, by definition, “unconstitutionalâ€.
An Amendment can embody bad policy, it can be counterproductive, it may represent an affront to common sense, and it can be destructive to the general purpose and intent of the Founders (as is the 17th is, for example), but it can never be unconstitutional.
Repealing the 16th Amendment would be tougher than getting this tax plan thriugh. By orders of magnitude.
“Drink me” The poison is sooo much easier.
I've run the numbers, using data from the IRS and the Social Security administration.
Per the scant details provided, Cruz's plan would add over a trillion a year to the deficit. See my post #36 for the details, and that was using someone's claim that the rate would actually be 15%.
The only way it would work is if the business tax raised far more than is currently collected by the corporate income tax. And frankly, I don't see how that could make things better -- businesses don't pay taxes: their customers pay them in the form of higher prices.
And once again, I'll reiterate: this analysis is from someone that LIKES Cruz. I don't see how this does Cruz any good, because the result is pretty obvious to anyone that knows where to find historical tax collection data.
As John has already pointed out, you are contradicting yourself.
A Constitutional Amendment is, by definition, the Constitution.
If an Amendment conflicts with an earlier version of the Constitution, the Amendment is the last word on the subject.
By your rationale, the 21st Amendment didn't repeal the 18th Amendment, and I don't know anyone sane that would agree with that.
Sorry, but I meant to respond to this and forgot.
I think you might be right to be concerned:
The corporate income tax – the source of endless waste and fraud in our tax system – will be eliminated. No longer will American businesses face the highest top tax rate, 35 percent, in the developed world. The trend of American companies and jobs moving off-shore will stop. Instead, all companies will pay a simple, low rate Business Flat Tax of 16 percent. The tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments.
If payroll isn't included in "expenses", this would be a killer for labor-intensive businesses, and be enough to push them over into no longer being profitable/viable. And, that would be the end of those jobs.
Not good enough.
Repeal the 16th Amendment. I you don’t, the “progressive†tax structure will coming roaring back.
Too Right. I'd like to see the NRST adopted instead. The biggest problem with simply rolling back the rates is that it doesn't get rid of the power of the IRS one bit. They will still be demanding that you submit your papers to them in violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.
The original income tax as established in 1913 was quite a bit lower than 10%. If you'd told someone back then that the rate would soon be more than 10%, they'd have laughed at you and called you a paranoid or worse. Here's the original 1040 form and instructions for the 1913.
Overall, not that steep a grade, but it put in place the monster that the IRS has become, because it requires you to keep track of your income and and qualifying deductions, and submit documentation of same to the government under penalty of perjury.
All of that is, IMO, evil. What we need is a NSRT. The government already has all of the mechanism in place to collect a national sales tax. Not one single drone has to be hired to implement this, because it's basically just expanding a tax that already exists. Just about every other part of the IRS, however, can be completely dissolved. It is in this way that we can get out from underneath their thumbs without having to resort to hemp neckties.
Those who wanted to insert a prohibition, right in the 16th Amendment, on the tax’s exceeding 10% were laughed to scorn. It would never, never, NEVER get that high!!! How dare you even SUGGEST that anyone would propose a 10% tax????? It was 70% just several years later.
I read the plan and listened to the Kudrow interview, and if I recall correctly, he mentioned that with static scoring, the 10 year cost would be under $4 trillion, and with relatively conservative dynamic scoring, under $800 billion for 10 years.
Then, I read that the tax is on REVENUE minus expenses and capital expenditure. And combined with the numbers he’s reporting, that’s what leads me to believe he’s not allowing expenses to include wages, broadly speaking. Because, then, it eould be more like a VAT, which could raise a bunch more money with deceptively lower rates.
As well, in the Kudrow interview, Larry Kudrow called it a sort of a VAT, or words to that effect.
Yeah. Scary. Glad I’m in the process of retiring.
Kudrow =Kudlow
My damned spellchecker kept changing “l” to “r”.
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.