Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz discusses his new Simple Flat Tax plan with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow
TheRightScoop ^ | 11/22015 | TheRightScoop

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016election; cruz; cruztaxplan; election2016; elections; flattax; goptaxplan; irs; kudlow; larrykudlow; lawrencekudlow; potus; simpleflattax; taxes; taxplan; tedcruz; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last
To: sitetest
I can't get the video.

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.

61 posted on 11/02/2015 8:30:19 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

I eventually got it. It wouldn’t play on my phone for some reason, but worked fine on my tablet. Thanks.


62 posted on 11/02/2015 8:35:42 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no rmal, unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

That’s all? Only $50,000 household income in 2015?
Heck I made that all by myself in 1986.


63 posted on 11/02/2015 9:27:26 PM PST by entropy12 (DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS or it is Amnesty! Only Trump has no rich donors pushing for cheap labor express)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gwgn02

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.


64 posted on 11/02/2015 9:34:24 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (Beau Biden's funeral, attended by Bp. Malooly, Card. McCarrick, and Papal Nuncio, Abp. Vigano.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwgn02

Why does Larry Kudlow always repeat himself? Sound a bit senile.


65 posted on 11/03/2015 1:38:18 AM PST by AdaGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; John Valentine

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.


66 posted on 11/03/2015 6:05:57 AM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Read the rest of my post. Did you even get past the first sentence.


67 posted on 11/03/2015 6:15:02 AM PST by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

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.


68 posted on 11/03/2015 6:16:55 AM PST by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
Only $50,000 household income in 2015?

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.

69 posted on 11/03/2015 6:25:12 AM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian
Read the rest of my post. Did you even get past the first sentence.

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.

70 posted on 11/03/2015 6:27:38 AM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: gwgn02

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.


71 posted on 11/03/2015 6:32:18 AM PST by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73; John Valentine
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.

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.

72 posted on 11/03/2015 6:42:18 AM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

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.


73 posted on 11/03/2015 7:20:09 AM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; John Valentine

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....


74 posted on 11/03/2015 8:39:10 AM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

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.


75 posted on 11/03/2015 8:53:05 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Those who wanted to insert a prohibition, right in the 16th Amendment, on the tax’s exceeding 10% were laughed to scorn. It would never, never, NEVER get that high!!! How dare you even SUGGEST that anyone would propose a 10% tax????? It was 70% just several years later.

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.

76 posted on 11/03/2015 9:14:49 AM PST by zeugma (Teach your child a love for motorcycles, and he'll never have money for drugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
But then, this is an open forum, and you get this kind of thing.

The rest of your rant is certifiably loony. Unfortunately, there's no block list -- which is in just about every other forum software.

77 posted on 11/03/2015 10:17:34 AM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

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.


78 posted on 11/03/2015 9:24:40 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (Beau Biden's funeral, attended by Bp. Malooly, Card. McCarrick, and Papal Nuncio, Abp. Vigano.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson