Posted on 10/25/2011 11:08:28 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Even as Rick Perry rolled out his own flat tax proposal, Newt Gingrich was quick to point out that he’s been a flat tax proponent since 1997. (“There are things I would to do, like a flat tax with virtual elimination of the IRS,” he said, back when he was Speaker of the House.)
Gingrich has his own flat tax plan on the table for 2012, and would like to “bump plans” with Rick Perry. To this end, he published a point-by-point comparison on his website. Right off the bat, I notice that Gingrich’s plan is also optional, although his rate is much lower – 15% to Perry’s 20%. The lower rate would probably win over more voluntary participants from the extremes of the income scale, but we’re still a long way from “virtual elimination of the IRS”… which would be obliged to service the old tax code, becoming the Windows 95 support department of the U.S. Treasury.
Gingrich doesn’t cap the deductions for charity and home ownership, while he notes both Perry and Romney include class-warfare caps for various aspects of their plans. Gingrich also proposes a much lower corporate tax rate of 12.5%, while Perry’s 20% is only average for an industrialized nation (although still much better than our insanely high current rates.)
Perry hasn’t talked about moving away from payroll taxes yet, but that’s usually a goal of flat tax reformers, and Gingrich would begin phasing them out right away. Besides facilitating far too much government bloat under the radar screen, the modern concept of the payroll tax always struck me as faintly tyrannical. Seizing someone’s income before they ever get to touch the money is closer to indenture than assessing a “tax.”
(More)
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Why are the candidates so in love with the existing, corrupt, hair-ball tax code we have now such that they have to hedge their bets by offering flat-tax “options?”
they should be PROUD to say they will eliminate it.
They always talk about flat tax then discard it in the general election.
This is why Cain’s pitch is more creditable, it isn’t likely to be discarded immediately upon winning the primary.
So Newt is Perry’s ‘Stalking Horse’.
Weaselly, half-attempts through an "optional" reform is highly UN-bold.
One of the major problems with a tax based solely on income IMO is that it fails to recognize the underground cash economy. At least if we have a consumption-type tax we will capture some of those dollars. There is no realistic way that the IRS will ever be fixed. It needs to go in its entirety.
By further comparison with both flat tax proposals, that thread also includes some lively discussion on the argument that Cain's 999 plan is no more than "sloppy reparations." !
:O
And Perry is Cain’s stalking horse — because, you know, the whole purpose of his flat tax proposal is to make 999 look even better!
(Guess I should add: j/k, y’all.)
After all, that's what the Taxed Enough Already Party is all about--making sure the gubmint captures more dollars.
I notice that just about every presidential election someone comes up with a new tax plan that resonates with the voters but never seems to get implemented.
These tax plans from Cain, Perry and whomever sound good, but the chances that we will ever see any of these tax plans put into place.
The problem with a flat tax is that it increases the burden on the poor, who currently pay no tax. And under burdens the more prosperous, who are currently paying higher taxes.
A national sales tax in lieu of income taxes is great idea because everyone contributes. But it needs to be a graduated sales tax.
Our current tax structure (simplified) is a graduated tax structure. An individual w/o a mortgage & children pays more taxes vs. an individual w/ deductions. The problem is that the current deduction structure has too many special interests cases.
The perfection of our capitalist system is that it encourages people to make as much money as possible but our tax structure penalizes individuals for being successful. People should be free from paying taxes on ANY income generated. If a person doesn’t want to spend their money, great. The individual(s) who inherit that same money will eventually spend it. Wealth is meaningless unless it can provide benefit to that individual(s).
Utilizing a graduated national sales tax would benefit all of society because everyone contributes. There would need to be some tax exceptions on life essentials: food, medical, utilities, home…. But everything else is taxed.
The poor who need a car spends $1k and pays X% in sales tax. The wealthy who wants a luxury car, spends $100k would pay Y% in sales tax. If the wealthy don’t want to pay Y% in tax, they can buy a $1k car. They both provide transportation to the standard of living for the individual and it maintains the core right everyone wants: THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE (FOR THEMSELVES).
I’m not an economist so this is just a crude example. Some would call this a luxury tax, but the taxes paid are the individuals choice! They can choose to purchase a $500 TV or a $10,000 TV. They both provide the same end result but the taxes paid remains the individual’s choice. This could also be applied to corporations.
Item Cost ,$ Sales Tax, %
0-100 2%
100-500 3%
500-1k 4%
1k-5k 5%
5k-10k 6%
10k-50k 7%
. . . . .
2M 20%
I notice that just about every presidential election someone comes up with a new tax plan that resonates with the voters but never seems to get implemented.
These tax plans from Cain, Perry and whomever sound good, but the chances that we will ever see any of these tax plans put into place are slim and none based on history.
In the meantime, the Congress continues to add pages to what has become the most absurd, unwieldy and unmanageable tax code in the world. Regardless who gets elected next year, I don’t expect that to change.
Actually, Perry is Newt’s stalking horse.
Jan 29, 2010 - Perry says in debate he would “absolutely” serve full term if reelected governor
Nov. 2, 2010 - Perry to AP: “I am not interested in going to Washington, D.C...”
Nov. 4, 2010 - Perry to NBC: “”I’m not running for the presidency of the United States.”
Nov. 8, 2010 - Perry to Newsweek: “Not going to run for president.”
May 27, 2011 - Texas Gov. Perry will ‘think about’ running for president
June 9, 2011 - Newt staffers “jump ship” over to Perry
June 21, 2011 - Perry formally announces presidential bid
http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/debate/The-Belo-Debate-Part-II-83068707.html
Well there’s this little matter of the 16th Ammendment.
The Constitutional Convention necessary to repeal it, would open the door to considerable liberal mischief!
Actually, Michelle Bachman had this proposed days ago. The others are jumping on the bandwagon. Where is Steve Forbes cheering for her?
Fairness requires everyone being contributors. This will create a counter to the class warfare scam of the communists.
Screw this politics and just do the right thing.
LOL. Sure it will.
Philosophically, you want a falsely progressive sale tax.
Horrible idea.
You will undermine wages and employment opportunities for skilled artisans and craftsmen. It'll kill jobs.
You punish those who save for a higher quality, longer lasting item, who consider total cost of ownership, in favor of those who make decisions based on immediate cost alone. Your scheme incentivizes consumer waste.
What effect would graduated sales tax have on discount prices? How much harder will it be for lower incomes to see improved standard of living because your scheme just put better products that much further out of reach for them?
The problem with a flat tax is that it increases the burden on the poor, who currently pay no tax. And under burdens the more prosperous, who are currently paying higher taxes.
Even your falsely progressive graduated sales tax will increase the burden on the poor who currently pay no tax because they pay no tax.
You say "The problem with a flat tax is..." while ignoring the specifics of each plan. If you look at Newt's Flat Tax proposal, the poor may still pay no tax because of deductions.
The big benefit here is fundamental fairness. A dollar earned or a dollar spent should be taxed at the same rate for any American.
You have a better idea? Like let’s just keep giving them benefits...but no obligations whatsoever.
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.