Posted on 03/25/2015 8:02:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Imagine there's no IRS. It isn't hard to do. No Obamacare to pay for. And no budget deficits too. Imagine all the people, living with a flat tax.
You may say Ted Cruz is a dreamer, but he's not the only one. He hopes some day—especially if you live in Iowa—you'll join him, and, well, he'll be president. That, at least, was the message during his announcement, oddly redolent of John Lennon, that he's officially seeking the highest office in the land. It was a conservative wish list to not only repeal the 21st century, but the 20th, too. About the only thing missing was a call to bring back the gold standard, although Cruz pretty much has that covered now that he's joined Rand Paul's crusade to curb the Federal Reserve.
Now it isn't easy to single any of this out as particularly unrealistic—that's like asking whether unicorns or centaurs are more real—but the flat tax might be it. That's the idea that everyone should pay the same tax rate. It's been the white whale for conservatives who not only want to go back to pre-New Deal levels of taxation, but also think this would super-charge the economy. Steve Forbes, for one, made this the centerpiece of his two presidential campaigns, and says that instead of the 2 to 2.5 percent growth we've gotten, a flat tax would make economic growth would explode up 6 percent the first few years and 3.5 percent thereafter.
But reality is a lot tougher than some tax models. A flat tax would just be a colossal giveaway to the rich—and maybe even take away for the poor—and that doesn't help the economy much. Just look, for example, at Rick Perry's version of this.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What this means in plain English is that the current "progressive" tax model would be discarded in favor of a model that taxes everyone the same. The "giveaway to the rich" is, in fact, taking less of their money. The "takeaway to the poor" is, in fact, turning them into taxpayers. The only wild imagination involved in this is the one claiming "it'll never work" without any substantive data.
This douche bases his entire sneer on a non-peer reviewed working paper from associate professor at U of Chicago. Meanwhile Several former Eastern Block countries actually implemented flat taxes and saw extraordinary growth.
That is the way they define it. Tax cuts are listed as “expenditures.”
WOW!!...I’m shocked...The wopo disagrees with Ted Cruz......also there’s gambling in the back room!!!
And if the Compost if for it I'm against it!
RE: And Russia isn’t exactly the poster child for fiscal health these days, is she? Her economy is in the toilet, her government bonds area at junk level, and her natives are getting restless.
And that’s related to their flat tax? What would happen if they had a progressive tax code with the KGB version of the IRS? That would be better for their economy?
Great, let’s just skip the flat tax and go all in with the Fair Tax. It doesn’t even need a postcard.
It apparently wasn't able to generate enough revenue when oil prices went down the tubes.
What was Buckley thinking when he turned National Review over to the girlie-boys?
Some who knew him ascribed it to jealousy of the great writers he once had working there. Buckley rarely contributed anything of substance to his own magazine.
RE: It apparently wasn’t able to generate enough revenue when oil prices went down the tubes.
And a progressive tax system like we have with their own version of the IRS will generate enough revenue when oil prices come down?
Let’s ask ourselves — where will the Russian billionaires and millionaires go if they had this type of tax code? They’ll stay in Russia because they love their country so much? /s
I have no idea, given that it's Russia. All I'm saying is that before we consider a similar tax plan for the U.S. spending has to be cut. Extensively. Otherwise the deficit will soar out of sight. So my suggestion to a President Cruz would be to get spending under control first, so we know the revenue requirements, and then implement the tax reform.
They recruited from the ranks of the policy wonks, and those are beltway types, terrified of saying something that might upset their liberal friends. They have systematically run off almost everyone but Victor Davis Hanson, and I’m sure he’s next. There are only a handful left there who are worth reading. Goldberg and Williamson, sometimes; McCarthy, fairly often; Hanson, always; Ponneru, NEVER; Lowry, almost never; Nordlinger, almost never; Lopez, NEVER; and so on.
They politely stand over to the side of History, mumbling “Gosh, I really hope this doesn’t end badly; should somebody say something?”.
Steve Forbes, for one, made this the centerpiece of his two presidential campaigns, and says that instead of the 2 to 2.5 percent growth we've gotten, a flat tax would make economic growth would explode up 6 percent the first few years and 3.5 percent thereafter... A flat tax would just be a colossal giveaway to the rich -- and maybe even take away for the poor -- and that doesn't help the economy much.
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.