Posted on 11/09/2011 7:08:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Done right, a flat tax can make the U.S. more competitive and help working people. So let's stop making it so partisan.
Here's the bottom line on the hottest issue in the presidential campaign: A flat tax, done right, is a good idea. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is definitely not a good idea. Rick Perry's plan is better but murky.
We'll be hearing much more about such plans, and since some kind of tax reform is vital to America's future, it's worth taking two steps back from the campaign sound bites to see what's really on the table.
Today's thinking on a flat tax originated 30 years ago when Stanford professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka proposed a detailed plan. The basics were simple: Individuals would pay a 19% rate on wages, salaries, and pension income above a generous tax-free allowance; no deductions. Businesses would pay a 19% rate with deductions only for what they paid in wages, salaries, pension contributions, goods, services, and investments, which could be fully expensed in the year made. The system is progressive and efficient, and it offers incentives for the right behavior.
They designed their plan to be revenue-neutral, even without assuming it would increase economic growth, though they believed it would do so.
Cain's plan at first included no tax-free allowance for individuals, making it hugely regressive; he has since promised to fix that, but the plan on his campaign website is unchanged. In any case, the plan's 9% sales tax still makes it regressive. It's thus a nonstarter, one indication among many that Cain is just not ready for primetime. Perry's plan with a flat 20% rate, a big tax-free allowance, and no sales tax is closer to the real deal. But it skews incentives by retaining deductions for mortgage interest,
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.fortune.cnn.com ...
Capital gains?
We need a tax plan that voters can love. One that can shoved down the throats of the ruling class. Cuz that’s the only way we’re gonna get it.
A flat tax Democrats can love....
90% with no deductions for millionaires and billionaires with incomes above $10,000 a year.
Perry's plan, as well as Newt's, is a "what do I got to say to get votes" plan
Cain is the only serious plan that address the real problem.
How do you broadened the tax base so that everyone has skin in the game?
Here is a flat tax, I think everybody can love.
1. Exempt the first 15 thousand dollars. If you’re only earning that, you’re making just enough for room and board.
2. Keep deductions for business expenses and capital gains and charity, but no other loopholes.
I don’t know how much it should be, but 17 percent seems reasonable.
Democrats love taxes like Homer Simpson loves donuts.
Only exempt the income if earned. Government checks should be taxed the full amount.
The purpose of a flat tax is to treat everybody the same. When you start differentiating between who gets taxed and who doesn’t get taxed, you end up with the same problems you do now.
You either tax everybody from their first dollar or you exempt everybody from the first 15,000.
But yes, I do agree that social service abuses do need to be addressed.
Capital gains is a reduced rate, not a deduction, so it’s not really a question of “keeping” it. And you probably need something in there that takes family size into account — a flat $15,000 exemption won’t do it.
So Forbes wants a ‘flat tax’ that doesn't raise taxes on those that pay no (income) taxes? Or he calls it ‘regressive’ tax if it does? That sounds like Perry's ‘just make believe it's flat’ tax scheme.
He (Forbes) wants a 'progressive flat tax' so Democrats buy it? Oh, brother!
Math 101: When you got so many Americans paying little or no (Federal) taxes you cannot have a 'flat tax' without raising someone's taxes, and still have it be either revenue neutral or positive, Zero taxes times hundreds of millions of Americans = zero revenue!
Republicans talk so stupid sometimes.
The purpose of a flat tax is that it’s the same, there is no differentiation in the rate paid for anybody.
If you re-invest your money, you have not drawn an income from it, so there isn’t anything to tax, which is what I mean.
When you change the tax system, somebody is going to take a hit, but the hit needs to be taken in order to effect a positive change in the end.
But I would be fine with deducting dependents.
Good luck with that. A flat tax runs counter to everything the Democrats stand for.
Except for the 50 or 60 percent of the population whose taxes you just raised.
Hows this grab you. First 15k exempt totally, and 5k exemption for each supported dependent, and 20% effective rate above that—strictly on ordinary income—no capital gains or estate taxes and NO SALES tax. 99% of population would have their taxes slashed at least 30%, revenues would explode because of investment and resulting job creation.
Cut the charitable deductions to 50/100 of dollars spent, keep the mortgage deduction but make it only 50/100 of dollars spent. It will at first meet resistance, but provided banks learned their lesson from 08 till now, it will mean that those that can afford it will either be very frugal and save rather than splurge, or it will cause individuals that CAN afford to buy to buy bigger.
Restore protective tarrifs to raise revenue from imported items and items built domestically by foreign companies—I’d say that 8% is reasonable there without discouraging purchases of imports while also making a revenue stream, use that to to form a seed capital loan company created in the vein of fannie/freddie (though hopefully, much better managed) to loan startup capital to American businesses to CREATE JOBS HERE, not in China or Thailand. Raise the payroll cap by 70%, but cut the payroll tax rates down to 8% (5%employer, 3% employee) because with exploding revenues, overall revenue needs won’t require anything greater than that. End result, obligations America has created for herself will be able to be funded, our economy will get moving again, and we might be able to turn this debt crisis around.
Including retired military?
I support whatever would work in the end.
I think that 2012 could be a very good year for sincere tax reform. It seems the GOP is very much in tune with the need to do that, because all of the Republican nominees are talking about it.
It would be very good if Congress actually sat down and created a system that was maximally competitive compared to the rest of the world.
I’m not wedded to having the first 15 thousand exempt. If it would be easier, as long as it works, to exempt the first 20 thousand dollars, I’d be fine with that as well.
Another possibility is income splitting.
What ever the family income is, allow it to be spread over the members of family and then tax it that way.
I know one father that incorporated his income and made his families shareholders. He gave enough shares to each person, that they earned just enough to be exempt from paying taxes and then he paid taxes on the rest.
It allowed him to only be taxed at about $45,000, instead of the $85,000 he would have been taxed at otherwise.
The next Republican president (regardless of what Erick Erricson says, the next president will be a Republican, not Obama re-elected), needs to sequester a dream team of economists to come up with a plan for fundamental restructuring of our tax code (lock em in a room till they come up with something that is either revenue neutral or raises revenue while still stimulating economic growth). Say put Art Laffre, Dr Walter E Williams, Steve Forbes, fmr congressman Bill Archer, Cain (if he’s not POTUS by then), Patrick Buchanan, and a few others in there, find a way to get the rates at the optimum amount to stimulate economic growth and job creation while also generating the maximum possible revenue to fund our obligations and pay down the debt.
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.