FLAT TAX
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
While I am not a fan of Rick Perry, check out his flat tax proposal. I think there is a lot to like:
1. It keeps some of the most important deductions - ones that help the middle class the most - personal exemptions and mortgage interest, along with state and local taxes (read property tax)
2. So it will be somewhat progressive in nature, as the higher earners should pay a higher effective rate on their income.
3. But it makes it optional - which I don't like, as people will pick and choose what is best for them - meaning he won't get the income he thinks he will from the plan.
4. I also like the idea of people having the ability to privatize their own SS - with the funds transfering to their dependants if they die. I think this is optional also - and a great idea. No one is forced to do so, but can if they like.
5. No death taxes - never could really understand why these are needed in the first place. Money has already been taxed.
There is more to the plan, but those are some of the highlights that I gleaned from it.
Doesn't matter though - my support is with Herman Cain - even with his gaffe's he is making. Seems like a great guy at heart. One that really cares about the country, and not about his own personal agenda or image.
It would be so nice to not have one of these stuffy, Ivy league types in the White House for once (it's been that way for 11 years now, and has not worked out so well. Neither Obama or Bush could really relate to the "common" man). But I do think Cain has the best chance of anyone out there to be able to relate.
Although, it will be easy for Cain, coming off the most devisive president in the history of our nation. The class warefare approach by our current president (who, as he was elected, said he'd bring everyone together - and has done just the opposite) isn't doing ANYONE any good.
I realize that Obama thinks class warfare is his only way to get re-elected - his whole argument of "the ends justify the means" that he used during the healthcare argument - even lying about his mom's insurance situation to use to get his legacy affirming bill passed (that will either be repealed or nullified by executive order as soon as he is gone).
Cain isn't perfect - but he certainly is when compared to Obama or any of the other Republican nominees.
I'd rather have a guy that has accomplished something in their life. That means Cain, or to a lesser extent I guess, Romney.
But Romney feels so much like Obama that I could not bring myself to vote for him. OK, he's a BIT better than Obama, so if forced with that choice, yes I'd vote Romney.
And I have a hunch that over 50% of the Americans will feel exactly the same way in 12 months......
1. It keeps some of the most important deductions - ones that help the middle class the most - personal exemptions and mortgage interest, along with state and local taxes (read property tax)
2. So it will be somewhat progressive in nature, as the higher earners should pay a higher effective rate on their income.
3. But it makes it optional - which I don't like, as people will pick and choose what is best for them - meaning he won't get the income he thinks he will from the plan.
4. I also like the idea of people having the ability to privatize their own SS - with the funds transfering to their dependants if they die. I think this is optional also - and a great idea. No one is forced to do so, but can if they like.
5. No death taxes - never could really understand why these are needed in the first place. Money has already been taxed.
There is more to the plan, but those are some of the highlights that I gleaned from it.
Doesn't matter though - my support is with Herman Cain - even with his gaffe's he is making. Seems like a great guy at heart. One that really cares about the country, and not about his own personal agenda or image.
It would be so nice to not have one of these stuffy, Ivy league types in the White House for once (it's been that way for 11 years now, and has not worked out so well. Neither Obama or Bush could really relate to the "common" man). But I do think Cain has the best chance of anyone out there to be able to relate.
Although, it will be easy for Cain, coming off the most devisive president in the history of our nation. The class warefare approach by our current president (who, as he was elected, said he'd bring everyone together - and has done just the opposite) isn't doing ANYONE any good.
I realize that Obama thinks class warfare is his only way to get re-elected - his whole argument of "the ends justify the means" that he used during the healthcare argument - even lying about his mom's insurance situation to use to get his legacy affirming bill passed (that will either be repealed or nullified by executive order as soon as he is gone).
Cain isn't perfect - but he certainly is when compared to Obama or any of the other Republican nominees.
I'd rather have a guy that has accomplished something in their life. That means Cain, or to a lesser extent I guess, Romney.
But Romney feels so much like Obama that I could not bring myself to vote for him. OK, he's a BIT better than Obama, so if forced with that choice, yes I'd vote Romney.
And I have a hunch that over 50% of the Americans will feel exactly the same way in 12 months......
As usual, Maggot, you run your mouth without putting your brain in gear. Under dumbo Perry's plan, you could compute your tax liability under either the present system, or under his "postcard" system.
Bottom line: less taxes paid.
Yah, that's a fucking wonderful idea. Uh-huh.
So how are you and Tex-numbnuts going to pay off the cost of Bush's $3 trillion wars?
I'll bet your answer is the same as Perry's...UH-UH-UH- DUH
At least you and Perry are good laughs. :142smilie
Bottom line: less taxes paid.
Yah, that's a fucking wonderful idea. Uh-huh.
So how are you and Tex-numbnuts going to pay off the cost of Bush's $3 trillion wars?
I'll bet your answer is the same as Perry's...UH-UH-UH- DUH
At least you and Perry are good laughs. :142smilie
Typical condescending, name calling response from you.
If you can't respond like an adult, please stay at the kiddie table. Your childish antics are not welcome here.
Less taxes paid = Good thing. Of course, that means your monthly check gets a bit smaller - but that's ok too, since you haven't earned it.
While it may take it less tax, we will also have to cut "entitlements" - again, a good thing.
Did you realize that when the income tax began (I believe in 1913 when income tax started, only 4% of the folks in this country were taxed?
Of course, that was back when people actually worked for a living, and they didn't have to fund all these damn entitlements.
Again, Duff, unless I respond to one of your posts, please don't respond to mine.
I am (and most everyone here is) sick of your childish name calling and meritless posts. You would think, at your age, you'd have some wisdom.
Geesh, my 7 year old doesn't act like you do. Of course, he had proper parenting. You, clearly, did not.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
You are going to have hard time getting the redistribution of wealth advocates to want to change current plan.
Your looking at the 47% that pay no taxes (with many getting refunds) that would no longer be able to cry about the other 53% paying up to 35%
-- is not paying their "fair share" :lol:
What I do not understand is how are lower taxes going to create more jobs in this country. Big business will still outsource their work overseas, as they do now, only they will pay even less taxes on it.
What we need is a tariff, one that is high enough to force Big Business to build their products in our country rather than over seas.
These flat tax scams are just that a scam.
What we need is a tariff, one that is high enough to force Big Business to build their products in our country rather than over seas.
These flat tax scams are just that a scam.
Duff:
I have no idea what he plans to cut.
All I know is what was reported that he said.
StevieD:
The theory is by lowering corporate tax rates, companies will hire stateside because even paying a higher labor rate, their pricing can still be competitive because their tax burden is lower.
Good article from CBS:
here is a paragraph:
"If they bring the money home, it's taxed the full 35 percent. If they leave it overseas, the IRS can't touch it. In other words, the tax law all but forces companies to keep their money out of the country, indefinitely.
"We leave the money over there. I create jobs overseas; I acquire companies overseas; I build plants overseas; and I badly want to bring that money back," John Chambers told Stahl.
Chambers told Stahl Cisco has almost $40 billion overseas that could be brought back to the U.S.
The total amount of money U.S. companies have trapped overseas is $1.2 trillion. Chambers is advocating for a one-time tax break to allow them to bring that money home at a rate of, say five percent. That would, he says, stimulate the economy and create jobs.
link to entire article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20046867.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
I have no idea what he plans to cut.
All I know is what was reported that he said.
StevieD:
The theory is by lowering corporate tax rates, companies will hire stateside because even paying a higher labor rate, their pricing can still be competitive because their tax burden is lower.
Good article from CBS:
here is a paragraph:
"If they bring the money home, it's taxed the full 35 percent. If they leave it overseas, the IRS can't touch it. In other words, the tax law all but forces companies to keep their money out of the country, indefinitely.
"We leave the money over there. I create jobs overseas; I acquire companies overseas; I build plants overseas; and I badly want to bring that money back," John Chambers told Stahl.
Chambers told Stahl Cisco has almost $40 billion overseas that could be brought back to the U.S.
The total amount of money U.S. companies have trapped overseas is $1.2 trillion. Chambers is advocating for a one-time tax break to allow them to bring that money home at a rate of, say five percent. That would, he says, stimulate the economy and create jobs.
link to entire article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20046867.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
But it is the wages and Health Care they would have to pay American Workers that they do not want to pay. That is why you see a major effort to break the unions. They get cheap labor overseas.
It has to be made that it is cheaper for them to make trhe product in the United States than it is to make it overseas and ship it here. A tarrif would take care of that.
US is trying to get China to let it's currency exchange rate float or at least be brought closer - that would be one way of combating this.
Not sure a tariff or protectionism is the way to go - then, they slap tariffs on our goods and what good have you really done?
Not sure what the best way to proceed is...
Not sure a tariff or protectionism is the way to go - then, they slap tariffs on our goods and what good have you really done?
Not sure what the best way to proceed is...
NAFTA = 1 million US jobs lost.
What a wonderful trade agreement
but Bill Clinton said this:
"NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
ooops.
What a wonderful trade agreement
but Bill Clinton said this:
"NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
ooops.
Clinton and all the other politicians and business leaders who support free trade are either stupid or liars or both. Mostly the politicians are fools who have been bought by big business donors.
Free trade improves the economics of poor countries at the expense of rich countries. Period.
Free trade subsidizes China and penalizes the USA. Period.
NAFTA should have included a gallon of Vaseline for every working American.
