Headline: Perry's way back....

#27
#27
I agree that the cost of compliance is out of control.

How about this -- instead of a flat tax, let's literally get rid of all deductions and exemptions of any kind for individuals making, say, over $50,000 a year, regardless of source, and for companies with revenues of over $5 million a year. Keep the graduated rate structure, but lower the rates across the board by half of what the loss of the deductions and exemptions is.

Everyone pays a lower rate. De minimis cost of compliance saves everyone money, as well. Dependable and stable. And no politicians carving out exemptions for their contributors makes the whole thing much more transparent.

.

You mean like the Ryan plan advocates? I knew you'd come around. Not sure why you want a massive middle class tax hike though...
 
#28
#28
I agree that the cost of compliance is out of control.

How about this -- instead of a flat tax, let's literally get rid of all deductions and exemptions of any kind for individuals making, say, over $50,000 a year, regardless of source, and for companies with revenues of over $5 million a year. Keep the graduated rate structure, but lower the rates across the board by half of what the loss of the deductions and exemptions is.

Everyone pays a lower rate. De minimis cost of compliance saves everyone money, as well. Dependable and stable. And no politicians carving out exemptions for their contributors makes the whole thing much more transparent.

.

Do something about the corporate income tax rate and capital gains and i'll go along with it.
 
#29
#29
You mean like the Ryan plan advocates? I knew you'd come around. Not sure why you want a massive middle class tax hike though...


Link?


Do something about the corporate income tax rate and capital gains and i'll go along with it.


Like I say, all rates are cut in proportion to half of increased revenue created by eliminating the exemptions and the deductions.

Add that to the savings from eliminating the cost of compliance and protecting your loopholes and what not, and its probably close to a wash for most. If they get back half of what they lost in exemptions and deductions in the form of a lower rate, and then save 22 % on top of that by no compliance costs, and then you add in what they save not paying lobbyists, lawyers, and others to keep their exemptions and loopholes.... and then you add in the benefits of predictability and stability....
 
#30
#30
Similar to what I heard Clark Howard advocate yesterday. A flatter tax with a 10% and a 25% bracket and no deductions.
 
#31
#31
Similar to what I heard Clark Howard advocate yesterday. A flatter tax with a 10% and a 25% bracket and no deductions.

The only folks and businesses really hurt by it are the ones who have been most manipulative of the system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
I agree that the cost of compliance is out of control.

How about this -- instead of a flat tax, let's literally get rid of all deductions and exemptions of any kind for individuals making, say, over $50,000 a year, regardless of source, and for companies with revenues of over $5 million a year. Keep the graduated rate structure, but lower the rates across the board by half of what the loss of the deductions and exemptions is.

Everyone pays a lower rate. De minimis cost of compliance saves everyone money, as well. Dependable and stable. And no politicians carving out exemptions for their contributors makes the whole thing much more transparent.

.

Why punish achievers?

Why don't we just give a standard deduction of the median income so that the bottom half pays nothing then say 25% of all marginal income over that amount? Or maybe 150% of the median income... or 200%?

I see the point about protecting those who are most vulnerable from "losing" but after you guarantee that basic protection I do not like the idea of gov't getting to choose winners/losers. I also do not like the class warfare that gets waged with the graduated rates.

What you propose is better than what we have now but not as good as a more "blindly just" system of taxation.

For corporations, just charge .75% of revenue and let it go at that. That's roughly equivalent to a 20-25% tax on profits for the avg company.

If these rates are not high enough to eliminate every other tax except for tariffs and perhaps use fees then raise them. I would like to see a completely transparent system where even the most simple minded citizen understands that taxes are being raised or lowered... iow's politicians won't be able to hide increases or cuts for their buddies.
 
#33
#33
The only folks and businesses really hurt by it are the ones who have been most manipulative of the system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

And the politicians who build the manipulation tools into the code for support.
 
#34
#34
Why punish achievers?

Why don't we just give a standard deduction of the median income so that the bottom half pays nothing then say 25% of all marginal income over that amount? Or maybe 150% of the median income... or 200%?

I see the point about protecting those who are most vulnerable from "losing" but after you guarantee that basic protection I do not like the idea of gov't getting to choose winners/losers. I also do not like the class warfare that gets waged with the graduated rates.

What you propose is better than what we have now but not as good as a more "blindly just" system of taxation.

For corporations, just charge .75% of revenue and let it go at that. That's roughly equivalent to a 20-25% tax on profits for the avg company.

If these rates are not high enough to eliminate every other tax except for tariffs and perhaps use fees then raise them. I would like to see a completely transparent system where even the most simple minded citizen understands that taxes are being raised or lowered... iow's politicians won't be able to hide increases or cuts for their buddies.


Our definition of a "just" or "fair" system of taxation is not the same.

I admit that what I am proposing would probably hit the wealthiest and big corporations that enjoy so many bought and paid for exemptions a bit harder than lower and middle class folks.

I honestly don't know why conservatives won't admit that a flat tax or the brand of "fair tax" being bandied about now would result in lower taxation of the wealthy and higher taxation of the poor and middle classes. Be honest about it.

Cain gets mealy mouthed when it comes to that and keeps redirecting with some vague notion that the savings to corporations for example will be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower prices. No proof. And its a rephrasing of trickle down theory that we've heard before, and of which people are very suspicious.
 
#35
#35
Our definition of a "just" or "fair" system of taxation is not the same.
You mean you do not think people who earn more, make better decisions, embrace better values, work harder, etc deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors?

Would it be "fair" right now to have a different set of rules for UT and Bama this weekend? Why not? By the logic you apply to taxes it isn't "fair" for Bama to benefit from the advantages that come from making the right decisions and working hard.

I admit that what I am proposing would probably hit the wealthiest and big corporations that enjoy so many bought and paid for exemptions a bit harder than lower and middle class folks.
What we have now isn't fair because they can get out of it. What you propose isn't fair either.

I honestly don't know why conservatives won't admit that a flat tax or the brand of "fair tax" being bandied about now would result in lower taxation of the wealthy and higher taxation of the poor and middle classes. Be honest about it.
Because it wouldn't. It is pretty simple. The current code has 75K pages with most of them dedicated to creating some caveat that the rich and large corporations are uniquely positioned to take advantage of.

Moreover, the savings would mean that rates would not have to go up on anyone. That 22% eaten up by cost of compliance is a pretty big chunk of change that can be given in one form or another back to the tax payer.... and I am NOT jealous of people who have or make more than I do. If I benefit.... it does not bother me if someone else does or does more.

Why are you so envious and hateful toward those who have more than you?

Cain gets mealy mouthed when it comes to that and keeps redirecting with some vague notion that the savings to corporations for example will be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower prices. No proof.
Yes there is.... and a businessman like Cain has lived it so long that he thinks it should be as intuitive to you and others like you as it is to him. When you are in a competitive business, the market will go toward equillibrium. Pricing will be optimized by supply, demand, and costs. If costs go down, someone to get more cash flow will lower their prices followed by everyone else who wants to stay in business. As we have pointed out to you ad nauseum, taxes are a cost for businesses. Costs go down... it changes the price points for the market.

And its a rephrasing of trickle down theory that we've heard before, and of which people are very suspicious.

Only because they do not look at the raw data for themselves. EVERYONE did well under Reagan's trickle down. In fact, it set the stage for the 90's as well. In bottom line terms- it worked EXACTLY as predicted except that Congress went on a spending binge that the enormous revenue increases could not keep pace with. During the 80's, Congress spent $2 for every $1 in revenue increases... and revenue almost doubled during Reagan's two terms.

EVERY class' standard of living improved... compare that with Obama's 3 years where the rich have been basically static while the std of living for everyone else has gone down.

It seems the left is so intent on punishing the "rich" that they are willing to see everyone else suffer more. They are so intent on the "rich" not benefiting "unfairly" that they would prohibit the std of living improving for everyone.
 
#37
#37

Cutting rates - fewer brackets - elimination of most deductions, credits. Pretty much what you said.

The Tax Foundation - Ryan Plan Smartly Marries Tax Reform with Spending Reform

Here's more

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/#federaltaxreform

Simplified Income Tax Rates. In contrast to the six tax rates in the current code, the simplified tax has just two rates: 10 percent on adjusted gross income [AGI] (as defined below) up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. These tax brackets are adjusted each year by a cost-of-living adjustment as measured by increases in the consumer price index [CPI]. (See Table 7 and Table 8 on the next page for comparisons with current tax brackets.) Taxable income equals gross earnings minus a standard deduction and personal exemption.

Broader Tax Base. The new, simplified code eliminates nearly all existing tax deductions, exclusions, and other special provisions, but retains the health care tax credit described above. As a result, it broadens the base of taxable income, allowing for lower income tax rates. Lower rates reduce disincentives to work and increase earnings.

Generous Standard Deductions and Personal Exemptions. The standard deduction is $25,000 for joint tax filers, $12,500 for single filers. The personal exemption is $3,500. The combination is equivalent to a $39,000 exemption for a family of four.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
I'm not sure trickle down works. I'm sure I'll get flamed for it though.

No flame. I am just curious in what respect you don't think it works. Reagan took over an economy that was probably worse in the relative sense than what Obama inherited. The Keynesian failures of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter had crippled the economy. A new term was created to account for something Progressive economic theory had produced that few thought possible- stagflation.

Reagan's policies were decidedly supply side. As JFK before him said while cutting taxes significantly to get the economy out of recession... "a rising tide lifts all boats". And... it did.

If the economy is expanding, opportunities are expanding, income classes are fluid based on personal performance, and everyone's standard of living rises... how exactly is that "not working"?
 
#41
#41
I said I wasn't sure. VN poli board is pretty well sure of everything. I have no idea what will get us out of this mess. Remember that we can't afford to run a giant deficit.
 
#42
#42
I said I wasn't sure. VN poli board is pretty well sure of everything. I have no idea what will get us out of this mess. Remember that we can't afford to run a giant deficit.

Not everything.

I personally have thought through a worldview and attempted to the very best of my ability to assure that it is consistent with itself. If I am wrong... then I am wrong really, really big. I have taken the different opinions drawn from that worldview and beat them as hard as I can against the opinions of others and also what I observe in the world. Some I freely admit to holding in faith but would not hold them if they weren't consistent with others that I have pretty tangible proof for.

I have changed my opinion on many things and am always open to changing again... but I have to have really good reason to do it.

If I seem too certain then it is generally one of two things. One, I have vetted the opinion over time and facts and am confident it is true. Two, I am attempting to vet an opinion by beating it as hard as I can against another strongly held and well reasoned opinion.

When I do the latter, either my opinion will break or the other will. That's part of the reason I am tough on LG. I find much of what he has believed to be in contradiction with not only what I believe but have proven to a great degree by experience.

A recent example is his poo-poo of Cain's claim that some of the sales tax will be absorbed by the supplier. That is simply true. If you have ever priced a product in a mature market.... you know it is true. Cain has priced products in one of the most difficult markets there is- fast food.

The simple example is that McD's knows how much they have to make off of a hamburger. They build costs into that hamburger to include their tax burden and tax compliance burden. If those things go down, they can charge less for that hamburger. Knowing that someone will if they don't... and gain market share by doing it... they'll not only reduce it, they'll try to reduce it first. The loser is the one who tries to keep too much of their tax reduction and loses volume.
 
#44
#44
No flame. I am just curious in what respect you don't think it works. Reagan took over an economy that was probably worse in the relative sense than what Obama inherited. The Keynesian failures of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter had crippled the economy. A new term was created to account for something Progressive economic theory had produced that few thought possible- stagflation.

Reagan's policies were decidedly supply side. As JFK before him said while cutting taxes significantly to get the economy out of recession... "a rising tide lifts all boats". And... it did.

If the economy is expanding, opportunities are expanding, income classes are fluid based on personal performance, and everyone's standard of living rises... how exactly is that "not working"?

Check out the short video on the "Laffer curve" , who was developed by Ronald Reagan's financial advisors, Dr. Art Laffer, and his proposol describing how raising taxes too high guarantees less tax revenue for the Federal Government. It is very interesting no matter your politics.

Art Laffer explains the Laffer curve on Glenn Beck Show - YouTube

And the proof that it works, Paul Krugman hates it.
 
#45
#45
As long as the tax debate surrounds the personal income tax, there will be no substantial change in the economic situation in the US. The legislatively easiest and most efficient way to turn the economy around:

1) Eliminate Corporate Income Tax (while creating substantial credits and deductions for small business owners who employ at least x number of non-family members (plus more rigorous criteria that would require decent deliberation in Congress))

2) Substantially raise the taxes on the top personal income brackets; eliminate loopholes and credits for everyone else.
 
#48
#48
The term "poverty" has been redefined in the last generation or two of public discourse to incorporate the ideas of equality and stratification. It is impossible to deny that the lowest, lower, and middle class citizens in the West are better off today than they were fifty years ago, much less centuries ago. However, while quality of life is improving across the board for all citizens in the West, the rate at which it is improving for the upper class is outpacing the rate at which it is improving for those below the upper class. This is what individuals and movements have latched on to. The irony is this:

They are condemning the upper class for upper class greed, when the only reason for condemnation is due to envy and jealousy (not a subpar quality of life).
 
#49
#49
The term "poverty" has been redefined in the last generation or two of public discourse to incorporate the ideas of equality and stratification. It is impossible to deny that the lowest, lower, and middle class citizens in the West are better off today than they were fifty years ago, much less centuries ago. However, while quality of life is improving across the board for all citizens in the West, the rate at which it is improving for the upper class is outpacing the rate at which it is improving for those below the upper class. This is what individuals and movements have latched on to. The irony is this:

They are condemning the upper class for upper class greed, when the only reason for condemnation is due to envy and jealousy (not a subpar quality of life).

Nice post. I also think it is a little ironic that their personal improvements in quality of life have largely been brought about by those they condemn. They have microwaves, TV's, homes, cars,.... those who provided them at an affordable price all made a lot of money doing it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top