[Bitsy]

The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future.

[Pecos]

The point of failure of this plan for me is that it gives Congress another revenue stream (VAT/sales tax) without repealing the 16th amendment. Mark Levine (following my lead on this, IMHO) made comment on this last night.

[for-q-clinton]

Why does this article say the Fair Tax will be 30% tax rate? I thought it was more like 15%?

[for-q-clinton]

Also this article fails to understand the prebate of the Fair Tax...where the poor (everyone for that matter) gets a check so that in effect all the stuff you buy for the essentials in a year aren’t taxed.

[Bigun]

If it's an "income" tax it's a non starter with me I don't care if it is flat, round, or square and here's why. The very same people who always have would STILL get to define just what is, or is not considered to be "income". No Thanks!

Far better would be the Fairtax which would collect revenue based on what one takes out of the economy in the form of consumption rater than what one puts into the economy in the form of work effort. That and the fact that the fairtax would not require the government to know even so much as anyone's name in order to collect their revenue makes it the hands down winner in my book! It's really ALL about FREEDOM!

[DennisR]

The answer is:

Limit the Federal government to 10% of our gross cumulative incomes. So if you add all of our gross incomes, and you come up with $100, the Feds could spend only $10.00. Of that $10.00, $3.33 would be raise through a national sales tax (so as not to hurt business and to collect money from people who do not declare income) and $6.67 through a flat income tax. So it is not one or the other, but both. And the only deduction there would be would be for charitable donations.

[CMAC51]

One nice thing about an energy tax is that it would reduce our reliance on foreign oil and environmentally-destructive energy practices. The other nice thing is that it is easy to avoid – just use less energy.

Sorry this writer just showed himself to be and idiot. You would not be able to avoid the impact of an energy tax because it would show up in everything you buy. Prices at Walmart would go up because all of the goods are brought in by Truck. Prices at DisneyWorld would go up because all of those rides and exhibits use vast amount of electricity. Do you ride the bus or a train to work. The price just went up.

[bolobaby]

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

[Hostage]

This fellow is grossly misinformed or deliberately misleading, Warning to others, don’t waste your time here, there is nothing worth reading.

[The_Reader_David]

The author, Lewis, may be more or less on our side, but his preference for an energy tax over a sales tax is coastal urbanite prejudice. An energy tax shifts the tax burden to the heartland, and out in these parts is probably more regressive than a sales tax.

[The_Reader_David]

As always the devil is in the details.

(Of course, that dictum suggests that with its layer upon layer of intricate detail, our present tax code is of demonic origin.)

[mrreaganaut]

However, 13% of GDP is still rather short of the 18.5% of GDP that the U.S. Federal tax system has generated over the past several decades. So, we would have to decide either to reduce spending considerably — which might be nice, but is a separate discussion — or generate more revenue somehow.

NO! Spending is NOT a separate discussion - it is the ONLY discussion. How to fund spending cannot come in a bubble, untouched by reality. If 13% is all that can be justly taxed, then THAT'S ALL they can JUSTLY SPEND. Conversely, if we're fighting a war and can spare no expense, then justice cannot delay spending; how to pay for emergency spending must wait for a peaceful day.

Now, we have the worst of both: impossible amounts of unplanned spending, and no just way to pay. We must control spending before debating taxing; indeed, the debate between the fair and flat taxes loses importance if spending is small enough. Remember, the whole government ran on just the revenue from import duties, once.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”However, 13% of GDP is still rather short of the 18.5% of GDP that the U.S. Federal tax system has generated over the past several decades. So, we would have to decide either to reduce spending considerably — which might be nice, but is a separate discussion — or generate more revenue somehow.”

This sounds useful except I bet the Federal government is NOT getting 18.5% now nor will it in the near future.

I think the ultimate purpose of Cain's plan(campaign proposal) is to stir economic growth and make us more competitive in the world economy we must live in. It is a pro-growth proposal.

To the extent that Cain's plan looks like a tax revenue cut, he makes the argument that the more efficient tax system will stir economic growth and increase revenues beyond that estimated by CBO static analysis. My being a natural skeptic I assume he is overestimating the revenue growth effect of this just as the CBO overestimates the revenue increases from taxing the rich by using static analysis.

Given that Cain is the only one with a real proposal he is going to make it optimistic sounding to try to head off the multiple attacks. Yesterday a Perry-dacyls was making the argument to me that Cain proposing ANYTHING was a sign that he is not ready to beat Obama, and that Perry has the right approach: PROPOSE NOTHING('except have a heart' LOL) to beat Obama!

Good luck getting spending cuts. Both parties pushed that till 2013.