Posted on 02/08/2016 7:00:17 PM PST by kiryandil
**snip**
...Ted Cruz has endorsed policies that would fundamentally change who pays the federal government’s bills, and how.
Expect the establishment wing of the Republican Party to increasingly draw attention to this fact, especially when it comes to his tax policy. While on the one hand Cruz’s plan hews to Republican orthodoxy in its large tax cuts for the wealthy, he also embraces a European-style Value Added Tax, which is a lot like a sales tax, as replacement for all payroll taxes, and which would enable the elimination of all income tax outside a 10% flat tax for all earners...
**snip**
...The downside to this is that his plan is both very regressive - shifting the burden of paying for the federal government onto the middle and lower classes during a time when only wealthy Americans are seeing economic gains - and that it places particular pressure on older Americans living off of social security.
As my colleague Shawn Tully points out, the Cruz plan would increase the price of the things we buy everyday by a lot. Cruz would argue that this would be more than offset by his tax plan’s increase in take-home pay. But what about people who no longer earn wages, like retired folks living off social security? They worked their whole life paying income taxes, and if Cruz’s plan is enacted, will have the rules of the game change on them when they can afford it least. Their entitlement payments won’t go up, but the price of everything they buy will.
Since older Americans vote in greater numbers than any other demographic group, and senior citizens are now one of the Republican Party’s most reliable voting blocks, expect Republican hopefuls to increasingly attack Cruz on this point in New Hampshire this week and beyond.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
Chile for one works quite well with their VAT, 17+%. But they don’t also have an income tax to go along with it.
Oh, I see. You are in that category of people who stoop to the lowest common denominator. Makes sense that you support Trump, then, I guess.
Wonder what would happen if I told April to “make me a sammich”?
I don’t watch network television, so I wouldn’t get your reference (nor vote for a poseur reality star).
Don’t Trumpbots get a pass? The DONEald said they could.
Yes, but I can see why "economists" would liken it to a VAT - since the CONSUMER ends up paying it.
Yes, glad we got that cleared up.
Gotta Love it! Tax poor old granny -— before tossing her off a cliff. ( oops, that’s his next article ...)
Always, always, always consider the source.
I know you’re aware of this.
In this case, the source is an enemy of Liberty, the Constitution, and our traditional, conservative principles.
When people like this rail against Ted Cruz, it helps us identify and confirm our resolve to support the best candidate in the race.
Look at the list of those who hate Cruz and ask yourself, “Why would these people be so opposed to Cruz?” If the answer doesn’t come to mind immediately, ask yourself a second time.
When the flak is greatest, you’re over the target.
We can learn something here, if (and only if) we are thinking it through.
So, thanks for posting this pro-Cruz article.
Why are you venting at me about what other people do? Was my comment too close to the truth that you felt the need to try and redirect? Interesting psych profile here... Hmmmm...
Do you think there are no taxes on each stage of production now?
Most plans provide for senior to recoup those paid on their income tax returns.
So paying less taxes is a good thing then...
Welcome aboard the Cruz train...
You're very welcome. I hope to post many more "pro-Cruz" articles like this in the coming days. :)
There are tons of taxes. This is just one way to get rid of them.
For the record, I still prefer an NRST that replaces our current tax nightmare entirely.
Trump’s my engineer - and I’m your Huckleberry. :)
The American people do want larger government, as you say, but they want only their “rich neighbors” to pay for it.
This business of the seniors is a SERIOUS defect in Cruz's plan. I'm sure the matter will come up again.
To get the total tax take down you'll need to shrink government (Ted's start is listed upthread), privatize SS and Medicare with politically palatable phase ins (essential but difficult), then go after the gibmedat entitlement boondoggles. Then shrink the debt/GDP ratio by growing the latter and starting to pay down the former. Selling off excessive federal land gradually would help. It's going to take more than a term or two, even with the best candidates imaginable, to get that all done. I doubt I'll ever see the Feds take the pre-progressive era 3% of GDP. We'll probably need at least that for defense for the foreseeable future. If some states want to tax themselves to maintain their current level of goodies let them try that... in competition with lower tax, less goodies, states.
The regressive value-added tax is the main reason someone I know would never vote for Cruz. (He has other reasons too.) It might be hard to explain this to low-income people. It’s not a big, juicy, visible issue.
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.