IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Posted on 10/27/2011 11:08:39 AM PDT by casinva
Perry and Cain, both contenders in the race to be the next Republican candidate for president, are proposing massive overhauls of the current progressive income-tax system to one based on a flat tax, though Perry’s proposal allows an out for taxpayers who want to stick with the current system.
Based on the broad outlines offered Tuesday, Perry’s plan “is likely to be a tax cut for nearly everybody,” said Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
snip
As for middle-income people, under Perry’s proposal they could continue to claim deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local income taxes — he allows those deductions for people with income of $500,000 or less.
Plus, Perry hikes the standard exemption to $12,500 for individuals and dependents. Under current law, the personal and dependent exemption is $3,700 in 2011. He also proposes eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits.
snip
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax proposal calls for a 9% tax each on individual wages and businesses, and a 9% national sales tax. Cain eradicates the estate tax and capital-gains taxes, and all deductions except one for charitable contributions. He carves out some tax relief for low-income people, including “additional deductions for those living and/or working” in empowerment zones. Read more on Cain's website.
According to Tax Policy Center calculations, Cain’s policy effectively acts as a 25% national sales tax for most people, with some reductions for certain items such as charitable contributions. Read the Tax Policy Center report on Cain’s tax plan.
Perry’s plan and Cain’s plan “are really quite different in that Cain’s plan had big winners and big losers,” Gleckman said.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 84% of taxpayers would face a tax increase under Cain’s plan
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Ping please.
I’m tired of hearing the Cain opposition stating that they are worried that the 9% can always be raised. Any tax plan can be raised both current and future. Just place measures that would insure that the rates would not go up.
Amen!
I like the plan that eliminates the IRS.
Perry’s plan and Cain’s plan “are really quite different in that Cain’s plan had big winners and big losers,” Gleckman said.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
For me, this is the wrong question. I want to know under which system the economy would thrive the best.
The assumption that our salaries will remain stagnant messes up the whole argument. Under which plan will it be easiest for me or my husband to start our own business?
Also, I have two grown children (ages 18 and 20). Under which plan will they most likely be able to find jobs and thrive without my help? Under which plan will Social Security remain the most secure?
If those above and below me are more independent, then it is essentially a pay raise for me. If it's easier for my husband or me to open our dream businesses, we won't be using our current income as the base for the calculator.
I see more opportunities to thrive under Cain's plan.
I don't plan on staying middle class. If the bulk of us are making more money, the tax increase won't matter.
That will get 'em to the polls. /s
The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 84% of taxpayers would face a tax increase under Cain’s plan
The least cost to me is to stay with the current tax laws. Perry's plan, of course, would allow me to do this. Am I for Perry's plan then? NO! There are several problems with our current tax system.
1. It is too complicated and costs hundreds of billions of dollars just to comply. Cain's plan would be much less complicated than what we have now. Perry's plan, because it retains our entire tax system while adding another tax option, is actually more complicated than what we have now.
2. Too many people pay no federal income tax and thus have no "skin in the game". Cains plan would require almost everyone to contribute at least something. Perry's plan would have at least as many people as now paying no federal income tax.
3. There is an almost one trillion dollar underground economy of tax cheats, drug dealers and other assorted criminals. Cains national sales tax would tap into this underground economy and get at least some revenue from the cheater's and criminal's income. Perry's plan would keep the underground economy untouched with the cheats and criminals contributing none of their ill gotten gain to the welfare of the Country.
We are either going to improve the tax system by eliminating some of these problems like Cain's plan, or we are merely going to change the tax system without tackling the real problems, like Perry's plan.
Right. And the "Perry opposition" is quite correct in pointiong out that Perry's 20% kind of flat tax could just as easily become 25%, 30%, 35%, and so on.
I've been paying income tax since 1956 and so which ever of these plans changes my personal rate up or down by a few thousand bucks, doesn't really move me toward one or the other.
I'm thrilled {up my leg} that the pubbies are beginning to seriously discuss tax policy reform.
The country is in dire need of a tax reform policy that will stimulate the economy.
I want my 401K and other investments to survive and prosper so that I can pay income tax.
Either the 9-9-9 plan or the 20-20 plan would stimulate capital investment and would create hundreds of thousands if not millions of new jobs.
When the discussion is about which plan is better, rather than staying where we are, the country is the winner.
When someone understands this, everything else follows. All progressive rates do is hide the tax burden from the eyes of the less affluent, but they still pay that tax in inflated prices.
Except of course they did not take into account the elimination of the IRS and the social security tax or the elimination of the federal gas tax (which is running 18 cents a gallon) or any of the other taxes eliminated.
Analysis should at least be done on what is proposed as opposed to what people misunderstand.....
Perry’s Plan Falls Short: High Corporate Tax Rates and Generous Exemptions Hurt ‘Cut, Balance, and Grow’
by Aaron Goldenberg
elimination of the federal gas tax...
NEVER gonna happen...
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.