Posted on 11/02/2015 2:04:51 PM PST by gwgn02
Ted Cruz spent a fair amount of time discussing his new tax plan in detail with Larry Kudlow on his radio show today.
The tax discussion begins around the 6 minute mark so skip ahead if you don’t have a ton of time:
Ted Cruz spent a fair amount of time discussing his new tax plan in detail with Larry Kudlow on his radio show today.
The tax discussion begins around the 6 minute mark so skip ahead if you don’t have a ton of time:
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-discusses-his-new-simple-flat-tax-plan-with-cnbcs-larry-kudlow/#ixzz3qNHLYve6
There's no video. Here is the audio. Space out to 55m8s.
Did anyone talk about the fact that the business tax looks a lotIke a VAT?
16% on net revenue to a business, except on exports (imports will pay the tax). Sounds like a VAT.
Cruz's plan also allows immediate expensing of business investments.
I eventually got it. It wouldn’t play on my phone for some reason, but worked fine on my tablet. Thanks.
That’s all? Only $50,000 household income in 2015?
Heck I made that all by myself in 1986.
In 1980, Reagan asked: “When will we have the courage to say that businesses don’t pay taxes.” Reagan pointed out that businesses only collect taxes, and the taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer.
Businesses and organizations of any kind should pay no taxes. This would wipe out all government interference in churches and political groups.
Repeal the 16th Amendment. The FAIR Tax is the way to go.
Why does Larry Kudlow always repeat himself? Sound a bit senile.
I beg to differ. A 100% ‘income tax’ (IT) IS the definition of slavery (vs. 13th). A graduated IT is slavery...to degrees.
So, unless you’re trying to argue the 16th (in invisible ink, or some lawyer nuance/penumbra) supersedes the 4th, 5th, 13th+, it is still constrained by the same Amendments.
Sorry, but, IMO, you can’t have it both ways.
Read the rest of my post. Did you even get past the first sentence.
If you don’t understand how lowering and flattening the tax rates would help cause the economy to grow, then I suggest you vote for Hillary Clinton. Her voters don’t understand, either.
2012, actually. But, I cited the wrong number: I inadvertently used the "constant dollar" table (which was adjusted by the CPI to 1990 dollars), instead of the "current dollar" table.
The closest value for 2012 was $47,475, which was the AGI floor for the top 40 percent. That means that 60% of households had an AGI that was less than that.
You can find this information and much more here:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12in01etr.xls
Be aware that it's an Excel worksheet, so you will need an application to view it after downloading.
Yes, I did. But, you obviously didn't.
Had you bothered to actually read my post, you would have noticed that I used YOUR suggestion of a 15% flat rate, instead of Cruz's 10% rate.
It still doesn't work.
ANY income tax structure *will* be modified by current or future Congresses to include deductions for their pet projects. It may start out as something as benign as deductions for loss incurred from some natural disaster, but it won’t stop there. The simple fact is any income tax will eventually become the same sort of monstrosity we have now. AND, they all will require an IRS-type agency to verify people are not cheating.
I'm not arguing anything. That's the way it is. Stomping your feet and screaming doesn't change it.
The whole point of a Constitutional Amendment is to change the Constitution.
An example: James Madison originally drafted an edited Constitution in 1791, making changes where he thought was appropriate to address the concerns of Anti-Federalists that thought a Bill of Rights was necessary.
Other members of Congress objected, saying they had no authority to actually change the the original wording of the Constitution. So, the House instead drafted Amendments, which changed the Constitution without editing the original text.
The Bill of Rights were actually additions, but subsequent Amendments have superseded both original text of the Constitution and even previous Amendments.
I’d love a NRST, at a MUCH lower rate than the Fair Tax’s 22%.
Now, there should be NO reason for the plethora of IRS that currently exists...just change the structure of ‘payment’:
Fed <- State <- Biz <- Customer
The framework exists already and it leaves the watchful eye of the People closer to home, where it should be.
The way it is? Per whom? the 20th Century courts (enabled by the Socialist takeover of Congress since 1900’s)? There’s no stomping nor screaming needed...only thinking and talking.
True, Amendments are passed to change the Constitution. They are to do so EXPLICITLY.
The 16h, as ratified, changed ONE thing only (”...without apportionment...without regard to any census or enumeration.”). There is NO other verbiage to even insinuate any other changes.
Is the fallacy that Congress, given this new power, can therefor strip the People of all other Rights to collect said ‘income’ (let’s not even get into the discussion of what THAT term means.)??
If so, which other Rights? How/why? If not, how can the 16th be valid and trample the 4th, 5th, etc.?
Where else does there exist Amendment conflict, such as this? None that I can see, have read. 21st was specific (repeal 18th), 20th specified extra parameters....
You may not like the decisions of the courts over the years, I take issue with many myself.
You may find areas where there are apparent inconsistencies that have crept into the Constitution via Amendments. OK.
The rest of your rant is certifiably loony. But then, this is an open forum, and you get this kind of thing.
Absolutely agreed. Not inserting the rate in the amendment was a major cause of a lot of our problems. Should have set it at a 10% max. Why 10%? Because God only asks for 10, and the government doesn't deserve more than God.
The rest of your rant is certifiably loony. Unfortunately, there's no block list -- which is in just about every other forum software.
Nobody is talking about raising the income tax above one percent!!! How dare you suggest that anyone would want to raise the income tax to ten percent?
I think it was Kevin D. Williamson in NR recently, who did a whole article on:
“Nobody is talking about...”
“How dare you?”
As in, “Nobody is talking about gay marriage!” and “How dare you compare gay marriage to polygamy?”
After all, nobody is talking about polygamy! Just as nobody was talking about gay marriage five years ago.
That one-two punch has been around a long time.
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.