Posted on 03/04/2016 11:59:11 PM PST by JediJones
Ted Cruz’s tax plan would cost less and stimulate the economy more than Donald Trump's, a recent analysis found.
“Of the two proposals that we have examined so far, those by Trump and Cruz, we find the Cruz proposal to be the better of the two,” said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. The free-market groups released a report comparing the economic effects of the tax plans from the two Republican presidential candidates.
Trump’s plan would lower the top individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.
Cruz’s plan would impose a single individual income tax rate of 10 percent and would eliminate payroll taxes. He would replace the corporate income tax with a 16 percent business flat tax that is often seen as a value-added tax.
One reason why Cruz’s plan would lead to both less revenue loss and more economic efficiency than Trump’s plan is that it "goes further than the Trump plan toward turning the tax code into a tax on consumption,” the report said.
In 2026, Trump’s plan would lower government revenue by about $800 billion, while Cruz’s plan would only cost about $550 billion, according to the report.
Cruz’s plan would increase real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2026 by about 8 percent, while Trump’s plan would only increase real GDP by 2.61 percent, the analysis found.
Both plans would lead to a decline in public-sector jobs but an even larger increase in private-sector jobs. Total employment would increase in 2026 by 1.56 percent under Trump’s plan and by 2.74 percent under Cruz’s plan, according to the report.
Cruz’s plan would also increase business investment and personal income more than Trump’s plan would, the report found.
(Excerpt) Read more at s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com ...
The Cruz business tax looks like a VAT to me though I’ve had several Cruz supporters sternly wag their fingers at me and say it isn’t so. Scary stuff but OK if the polithieves are not allowed to gradually up the rate. The real problem with a VAT is that it is hidden.
The headline is self-contradictory. If it’s flat, there’s no way it can be stuctured as a VAT. Of course, if you want to redefine terms to support your assertion, go ahead. Then who’s the fraud and scammer?
Ted has almost zero chance of putting his plan into law. That is the difference.
The burden’s on you to explain how the flat 16%, applied once in the supply chain, IS a VAT.
Now you are just being an opaque sophist. I hope you are not actually aware of the dimensions of the scam Cruz is perpetrating here.
At the end of the day taxes have to be paid by the lower 1/3 of income earners, or the middle 7/12 ths or the upper 1/12th (just so it all adds up to 100%). That the lower 1/3 largely got written out of the income tax code is a democratic scam, but at the end of the day all of the money has to come from the upper 2/3rds. What Cruz is pushing is 10% on the upper 1/12th. The rest of us get stuck with the tax bill for the things that their lobbyists push the congress to spend money on.
In short Heidi's paymasters have invented scheme to lower their taxes even further and simplify the tax code for them while sticking it to the 7/12ths who have the income to pay their tax bills for them.
It's a fraud, and this one is all of Cruz's creation (and the folks behind him).
The Tax Foundation: Ted Cruz’s “Business Flat Tax:” A Primer.
It isn't applied "once in the supply chain." Every business entity pays it.
A vat tax is a tax added to the value of an item and paid by the consumer at the point of sale. Is ted’s plan for the consumer to pay the tax at the point of sale?
I can't imagine how my prior comment inspired such an odd reply.
I only pointed out what the article said, that Cruz's plan is more of a push toward consumption-based taxation. The fairest type - assuming you define fairness objectively.
If fairness is simply a subjective feeling, then you get what we have today - extremely progressive taxation. The least fair option. Objectively speaking.
Progressive taxation is, by very definition, objectively unfair.
Consumption-based taxation is certainly NOT "regressive." Unless you imagine that the hardware store owner is, at the time you buy a hammer, going to enquire about your overall economic status before setting the price.
You can argue that the move from highly progressive income taxes toward consumption taxation results in people who pay less or zero today paying something tomorrow. That is true. And good. And fair.
A truly regressive tax would be the opposite of what we have today - where you would pay less of a rate as you earned more money.
I don't see anybody on any side arguing for that.
I'm choosing to vote for Ted because I favor Freedom, which is why I clicked on FreeRepublic in the first place years ago.
Freedom was the defining quality of America, originally. Not subjective fairness. The Founders understood that charity has no place in the general (central) government.
The US Constitution is the rule book which is supposed to protect Freedom from Democracy. Ted is not perfect. But by my calculation he is the best bet to keep his oath to protect the rule book in the face of the subjective nature of Democracy.
Feel free to choose otherwise.
Forbes is wrong. Forbes States that charging a 16% business flat tax will result in the cost of goods being raised 16%. This is an untrue assumption. Forbes is not counting the financial savings to the company of the other tax which was replaced by the flat rate. Because of that, it is NOT logical to assume that the 16% must be passed on through the cost of the goods sold
What tax rate was the business paying before it was paying the 16% flat rate?
Combining Trump’s tax proposed tax plan with his proposed healthcare plan-—https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform-— especially points 5 & 7, the nation could have an economic renaissance not seen for decades. His healthcare plan alone could save between $600-800 billion dollars per YEAR in Federal healthcare related spending as the plan could drop medical spending in the US by 80%——http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231180
Psssst—don’t mention that to the supporters of the grand poobah! They will curse you up one side and down the other-—just like Obama supporters
Cruz calls the VAT tax a “business tax”, but we all know that it is a VAT tax.
It will always be an open door to keep raising that tax when the gooberment wants more money.
Those businesses will add that tax into goods and services that will be paid for by the consumers.
It is a disaster. It already is in Europe.
Crux talks of his flat tax, until you find out about the extra VAT tax of something like 16%
As a recent small business owner of 17 years I can tell you Ted’s plan would not have been good for me and Trump’s would have.
This is the difference between a person who has no business experience trying to formulate a tax plan and one who has extensive business experience. There is no comparison.
Watch and wait for two years.... Zero will have been accomplished protecting this country.
Buy more ammo.
Do businesses not have to pay taxes now?
Tax the wealthy sounds like a liberal idea
“Google” told you that?
But a cruz hater up thread thread told us Cruz copied it from Trump.
Which is it? I’m so confused. Seems y’all want it both ways.
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.