The GOP’s “Abolish the IRS” Crackpots

Natural Born Conservative ^ | November 28, 2015 | Larry Walker II

[MaggiesPitchfork]

As long as there’s a tax on any kind of income, these plans will go the same way as the current one has. Sales tax only. Simple and to the point. If you’re the type of person who likes to keep warehouses of receipts, you can get child credits at tax time.

[NaturalBornConservative]

Right, the figures represent Income Taxes. They do not include Social Security and Medicare contributions, which barely cover benefits currently being paid. However, there is another chart that includes them.

You don't have to take my word for it, but since the 39.6% bracket doesn't kick in until taxable income exceeds $413,201 (for singles) and $464,851 (for couples), which places one in the top 1% of earners, and since it only applies to taxable income earned above this level, it's safe to state that no one pays an effective tax rate of 39.6%.

Milton Friedman was a great economist, and far from a crackpot. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is an attorney and, in my opinion, a political con artist, always eager to capitalize on any falsely drummed up controversy.

[Dr. Sivana]

I understand that any tax rate that doesn’t kick in at $1 means the effective rate is never reached, but that goes with almost every tax except for a true flat tax without so much as a standard deduction. Those in the economic stratosphere or with one time windfalls certainly pay 39.6% on a sizable chunk of their income (unless they have offsetting deductions).

If Cruz were a con artist, he either would have kept the numbers fuzzier than he did, or he would have come up with numbers that couldn’t come close to paying the bills in the short term.

Although Cruz is a lawyer, I have no doubt he solicited the help of economists he trusted. Reagan was an economics major at Eureka, but he certainly enlisted Arthur Laffer and others to help out, and he built on the Kemp-Roth bill, authored by a couple of reps who focused on economics. In fact, according to the Washington Post, Laffer helped Cruz on his plan. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/28/ted-cruz-rolls-out-flat-tax-plan/).

You can dislike the Cruz plan, you can perhaps come out with a better one. I would not refer to it as a crackpot plan.

I have the converse problem with Trump. I am sure that Cruz has a coherent consistent moral code and political philosophy that helps him resolve matters. Trump is a bit more a la carte. As my issues of main concern are those odf a social conservative, Trump brushing off the marriage question as one that’s been decided by the courts and is now off the table vexes me.

I have tried very hard to give Trump his due. He has been saying a lot of good things, and is making the right friends and enemies as of late. I just do not trust him to be a full spectrum conservative that can create a structure that outlasts him like Cruz can. He may force a two party realignment, that may be a very good thing. If it turns out to be a bad thing, we may be toast anyway.

[NaturalBornConservative]

If Cruz were a con artist...

Who has sent out more mass mailings intent on raising money for sundry causes than Cruz. "Help me repeal Obamacare... please sent $100 or your best donation. Help me abolish the IRS... please enclose your donation. We have to subject Supreme Court justices to elections... please send more money. Help me shut down Planned Parenthood... please enclose another check... etc...etc... If he's not a political con artist, I don't know who is.

[Dr. Sivana]

Who has sent out more mass mailings intent on raising money for sundry causes than Cruz. "Help me repeal Obamacare... If he's not a political con artist, I don't know who is.

You don't know who is.

Every political fund-raising operation good and bad, since the early days of Richard Viguerie have done this. Frankly, I don't mind getting requests to help a full-spectrum conservative go after the whole package.

What I personally don't like are those appeals that pretend they are personally thinking of you ("We still haven't heard from you, we are disappointed in you," etc.).

The worst one was from Pat Buchanan, when he (in his letter, no doubt written by someone else) promised to "be my special friend" if I sent money in for a new venture.

I think it's great that Donald Trump doesn't have to raise his own money. I also think there is room at all levels of political life from the president on down for people who are not extravagantly wealthy.

The guys like Tom Tancredo and Rick Santorum and Jack Kemp were beaten largely because they didn't have the financial means to run a modern campaign. Hiring a company that uses standard fund-raising practices doesn't make the campaign corrupt. Mr. Trump himself is A-OK for using hyperbole for self-promotion. That doesn't make him a con-man either.

Ted Cruz entered his dorm room at Princeton at 17 years of age carrying a copy of "Is Karl Marx a Satanist". Cruz has been a full-spectrum conservative for a long time. That's an awful longtime to set up the "con".

[NaturalBornConservative]

What I personally don't like are those appeals that pretend they are personally thinking of you ("We still haven't heard from you, we are disappointed in you," etc.).

On this we agree. But, I also despise politician's who turn every issue of contention into a fundraising event, especially when there's no chance of victory. They take our money, and then deliver nothing, over and over again. I'm so disgusted that every time I see one, I personally deposit it in File 13. And, when they call, they get my voicemail.