Posted on 09/29/2015 3:56:48 AM PDT by Helicondelta
"This is a hell of a plan,” conservative radio host Mark Levin said Monday night about Donald Trump’s tax proposal, while admitting he disagrees with the GOP candidate in several areas.
“Let me tell you the strong things in this,” he continued. “And he’s very specific for those who want specifics.”
Levin explained:
From seven tax brackets to four. And the top rate is 25%. The top rate now is 39.6%, but for some people it actually winds up being 43% thanks to the deal the Republicans made with Obama a few years ago. So, the Republican establishment types – the Bushies, the Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)58% guys – they really have no complaint here, because while they voted to increase the top level to 39.6, and in some cases 43%, 25% would be the top rate under the Trump plan – and I would remind you I think it was 27% under Reagan.
Levin said that, although he prefers both the flat and fair taxes, he thinks Trump’s plan is good overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
We need something, because there are way more people in the cart, than there are pulling the cart.
HOORAY Trump
HOORAY Mark
“I dont agree with only 50% of the people paying taxes....we all need to share. Possibly a 2% national sales tax?”
Yes, I agree, but not about simply adding on a national sales tax. If I remember correctly, the income tax began at something like 1%, right? And we see what happened after that.
IMO, the 0% bracket is one way to negate some of the democrat demagoguery in the general election and get Trump elected. I would argue the bottom bracket could then be raised to 4%, as I heard that 4% is the effective tax rate that most people in the under 50,000 income range now pay. I believe it is imperative that all Americans have at least some “skin in the game”, or they will just forever vote for more “give away free stuff” politicians.
And I too am more in favor of a consumption type of tax.
He does have to be elected President first.
LOL!
I agree with you on that. And not just because of the massive deficit, although that’s the overriding issue.
IMO, everyone needs to pay for the defense of their country (and other legitimate government functions), just as people should pay locally for the benefits of police and fire protection.
5% would bring in 100 billion? That’s significant.
At any rate, you won’t find any horse heads in your bed tomorrow morning...
http://zeugmaweb.net/histdocs/income_tax.html.
Personally, I do not believe the tinkering with rates and deductions do enough to kill the beast. Today, the vast majority of the code is concerned with identifying exactly what is considered income. Regardless of what is done with the rates, this infrastructure will remain, as well as the requirement that you waive your 4th/5th Amendment rights, and the huge infrastructure in place to collect all of this data from you, employers, and investment houses.
The real solution is to dump the income tax completely by repealing the amendment that authorized it, and going with a straight national sales tax. I figure 10% would be about right, because God only asks for 10% and the government surely doesn't deserve more than God. If that's not enough money to run operations, then it is time to take a chainsaw to departments and agencies until it does.
> “Actually, your recap of the 1st income tax isn’t quite correct. On my website, you’ll find a page about it, that includes a PDF of the original income tax form and the instructions that it came with. It is 4 pages total.”
Thanks for posting your link but you’re talking about the form, not the code. The code was 14 pages long.
Almost correct. Fix your sentence to state:
The real solution is to dump the income tax completely by repealing the amendment that authorized it, and going with a straight national RETAIL sales tax.
> "I figure 10% would be about right, because God only asks for 10% and the government surely doesn't deserve more than God. If that's not enough money to run operations, then it is time to take a chainsaw to departments and agencies until it does."
Fine 10% it is except you will need to cut everyone's social security check in half or extend the retirement age to about 95.
You're smart enough to see that more work needs to be done rather than just blowing hot air about the level of tithing etc. I'm not criticizing you so much as I am egging you on to think and work further because you're on the right path.
I’d love to have a copy of the code if you have a reference for it.
The retirement age should be around 80. When the age was first set, average life expectancy was about 45-50. The vast majority were never expected to get SS. It was also meant as a supplement as opposed to being one’s only means of support. Additionally, SS is at least theoretically separate from the rest of the budget, wit separate funding schemes. Granted, it was designed as an unsupportable Ponzi scheme, but we are faced with that unfortunate fact regardless of what we do about the income tax.
I could easily support IRA-like mechanisms to get folks to take more responsibility for their own retirement. The whole issue of SS is a major can of worms because of the propaganda that has consistently been spread about it essentially since day one.
Starts with Section II on page 166 and ends at Section III on page 181.
http://legisworks.org/sal/38/stats/STATUTE-38-Pg114.pdf#page=53
Gee a a guy has been a roofer his whole life, good to seem them swing a hammer on a 12/12 pitched roof at 80.. Good idea.
> “The retirement age should be around 80.”
Sorry, doesn’t stand a chance unless you can pull a Mussolini act. More on this later.
The practical way of getting to the goal is to first clip the IRS into a very small unit by freezing new hires and reassigning the millions to other areas such as border control operations. This is the Ted Cruz position.
With a small unit of about 25,000 federal workers remaining in the IRS, they may be eliminated from working entirely from Income Tax Code operations and reassigned to provide services to consumption tax code operations working with state collection units.
The very concept of 'retirement' is a very 20th century concept without historic foundation. I refuse to believe that it is my duty to support other folks in their old age at the point of a gun.
That is most excellent! Thanks a lot for the pointer. I’ll try to convert that into HTML to make it a bit easier to get at, and refer to it from my 1913 page. It ought to make for some interesting reading as well. Thanks again.
lol.
I thought you were gonna say “my offer is this...”
:)
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.