When i talk about proponents of a flat tax, I am referring in virtually every example I am aware of to someone who is also associated with the GOP. Like Rand Paul. Those who are attracted to it more generally in my opinion either are misled as to its true effect, or who in fact would benefit from a lower rate of taxation achieved by eliminating progressivity in the tax code - in other words, the wealthy. The difference in tax rates applied to income from working as compared to capital gains tax rates is not really the issue here. I perhaps should have merely referred to progressive rates in general. I also agree it is a huge problem when very wealthy people end up paying a lower effective overall rate of taxation than your average middle to upper middle class person. But altering or eliminating the structure of deductions, credits, lower rates on capital gains, that would change that situation does not require eliminating progressivity from the tax code.
GIven the rampant growth in wealth inequality and the adverse effects on our society, particularly the anti-democratic effect of the wealthy buying politicians and elections, I find the notoin of helping them even further as a rather odd choice. Why would your average person want to do that??? And i did give you a specific group who would be harmed by Paul's VAT-like proposal. You merely did not respond on that.
The Progressives like Bernie and Warren want to tax stock trades to prevent shenanigans by rich traders and fund gov programs. There's different ways to skin a cat. And to avoid paying taxes. It's easier said than done to prevent tax loopholes. But it's worth trying. Warren is an expert on this kind of stuff.
I have read, last week in fact, that Paul's actual flat tax proposal couples a much lower, and flat, income tax rate with a consumption based increase similar to th VAT tax used in many European countries. The situation I mentioned of retirees and those approaching retirement is one that concerns the consumption tax Paul is talking about. It strikes me as obviously unfair, and probably a political non-starter, to sugggest that people who have accumulated savings after having paid at higher income tax rates should now be expected to take those AFTER TAX monies and be taxed at much higher rates as they spend that money in the form of consumptoin (sales) taxes. Btw I am sorry if you are not familiar with the term "useful idiot". It is not the same as just plain being an idiot. It a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. And one more thing - there is nothing inherent about a flat tax that would require the overall rate of taxes paid by a given society would be lower, higher or the same. and I disagree completely that cutting taxes for the wealthy is a benign consideration.
I have seen nothing in his proposal that says anything about a vat tax. can you show me where that is? I'll say this. if he's purposely misleading and has a hidden vat tax I'll lose a lot of respect for him strictly speaking to helping the wealthy I see no problem with it if it also helps the middle class and poor. it helps bring back comlanies who left too.
Check out the "useful idiots" in Kansas...Elected heavy GOP...They went full "fairy tale trickle down" by eliminating state taxes on business entities...Deficits ballooned up due to the fact that fairy tales are in fact fairy tales and magical jobs and more revenue don't suddenly appear. To solve their deficit problem., they just raised consumption taxes... Useful idiots in Kansas paying more taxes.
Too many people in this country are lazy and rather bitch/complain than work hard and have been convinced by rich folks that taxes are the real reason they suck at life. This country's pathetic work ethic is the real problem.
That is true. Many of the people I know that benefit from government assistance are the same that cry about the high taxes. The mantra they get from the rich. I feel like saying "wtf do you care about high taxes you don't make any money anyway..." and "where the hell do you think you got your house/income/etc from but tax payers? - I'm not saying this about any certain posters here, just an observation from my own life
Show me the money! This is just another spewing of Voodoo economics without putting the numbers out there. 14.5% will create how much total income? How much are we spending in total now? How is the difference reconciled? Is he seriously proposing to eliminate all investment income tax for the wealthy (because the poor don't have money to invest)? And will he tell us how eliminating all import duties and tariffs will impact the American workforce? The problem with all this political nonsense is that (to paraphrase Pogo) the voting public is an ass. About half will vote simply on party line and three quarters of the rest jump on these sound bites like a turkey dinner. If Paul was serious about making this work he could probably summarize a balance sheet in two pages - with real numbers. He's not.
The thing about the libertarians. They actually believe in THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Which isn't Voodoo Economics. It's just not practical because it believes that market forces rule and there is nothing logical about collusion and cheating. There isn't unless you're dishonest like the 1%.
My father was honest to a fault. So's my wife. Me too. Most people I know go out of their way to be honest. Except on their taxes.
There is a big part of this plan that is unknown and cannot be put on a balance sheet. i wouldn't call it voodoo but whatever floats your boat. The assumption is that businesses come back to the US. That creates tax income from the companies and there employees. Right now our corporate tax rate simply isn't competitive in the global economy. Hong Kong and Russian Federation both experienced an increase in tax revenue under such a plan. The assumption is logical but you can't apply accurate numbers because no one can predict the future. There's also the spending cuts which we need regardless of whether taxes change.
Of course it could be put on a balance sheet, but no one will do that because it will expose their plan as a sham and take away all the room to waffle. All Paul needs to do is plug his formula into 2014, for instance. We know what we spent and we can show what the total income would be under his proposal, but he would need to produce specifics rather than platitudes.
How would we support the welfare state? I like the idea, but how would the people who flock Walmart at the first of the month on their hoverounds survive?
Ah, the undifferentiated call for spending cuts. Cuts in what, exactly? Aid to education? Capital expenditures for infrastructure? Debt service on the national debt? Air traffic control? How about the armed forces? payments to veteran services? How about social security, medicare? Really? In fact there is no evidence that cutting government expenditures will have a positive effect on our overall economy. It's just a right wing slogan.
