Christie is unelectable. He's a repugnant personality on a parade float. America has never elected one of those President to my knowledge. Just his size disqualifies him from serious consideration, although a jovial Santa-like politician might have a shot. Christie is closer to Hermann Goering on the Likability scale than he is to Santa Claus. If he actually runs for President it tells you that he is as delusional as he is generally repugnant.
But, but, but how can anyone get huge tax breaks with a flat tax system? No response necessary if the second part of your post is meant to indicate you would like to invoke Emily Latella here and add the "nevermind" to your original post.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-has-highest-corporate-income-tax-rate-oecd Everyone would pay 14.5% under this plan. Does that answer your question? Can you imagine how many corporations would start doing business in the US? How many jobs that creates? The original post btw, was nothing more then posting the rand paul flat tax plan. The rub is the hidden VAT which I still need to learn more about how it works.
The game is rigged in favor of the wealthy. If you don't see that, or are happy about it, see my reference above to useful idiots.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/ The Internal Revenue Service has announced the annual inflation adjustments for a number of provisions for the year 2015, including tax rate schedules, tax tables and cost-of-living adjustments for certain tax items. These are the applicable numbers for the tax year 2015 – in other words, effective January 1, 2015. They are NOT the numbers and rates that you’ll use to prepare your 2014 tax returns in 2015 (if you’re looking for those, you’ll find them here). These numbers and rates are those you’ll use to prepare your 2015 tax returns in 2016. Got it? Good. Here are the highlights: Tax Brackets. The big news is, of course, the tax brackets. Here’s what they look like for 2015: Individual TaxpayersMarried Married Individuals Filing Separate Returns
Are you against people having jobs? More people working tends to be better for the economy, but you already know that. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force
The fundamental law of capitalism is that when workers have more money - businesses have more customers. Middle class consumers are the 'real' job creators. Not the elite. Middle class consumers aren't the by-product of economic growth.. they are the source of it.
One way of significantly creating jobs and good paying ones: passing a major infrastructure bill that would help everyone. Maybe if the Repubs win the White House then they'll do it. Because then they'll be able to take credit for it. If they did it now their enemies would claim the credit. This is unfortunately how things work in DC.
The number in the first column is going to skyrocket under a flat tax, and it isn't going to be because you're earning any more money.
yes we should make it tougher on them to avoid paying american workers and still make money in this country
In place of seven tax brackets, there would be one (with a generous standard deduction for the first $50,000 of income). In place of hundreds of credits, deductions and other loopholes, there would be only a handful. The plan preserves a surprising array of loopholes and exemptions, including the charitable deduction, the mortgage-interest deduction, the child credit, the earned-income credit, and the mother of all loopholes, the tax exclusion for workplace health benefits.
The other part is to reduce government spending. Rand Paul proposes an actual balanced budget yearly. There is also offset in tax revenue assumed by companies coming back to american shores and more employed people. Obviously these are things that can't be put on a balance sheet as they're unknown, but again, this type of plan has actually increased revenue elsewhere.
Here's an article that seems pretty fair discussing pro's & cons of the plan I have to agree on the excises and import tariffs. We should be increasing those, not removing them. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-and-the-bad-in-rand-pauls-2016-flat-tax-plan
Precisely. What really is essential to job creation is demand, or more accurately the perception of businesses that if they create a new or additional product(s), there will be a demand for the product. If there is no perception of demand, all the tax cuts in the world on so-called job creators will not lead them to hire any new employees. The wealthy tend to spend a lower percentage of their income. A related concept is the velocity of money, or the speed at which money is spent, how quickly it moves through the economy. A given dollar earned by a lower income to middle income person is more likely to be spent and spent more quickly than money earned by the very wealthy. In short, without effective demand there, businesses do not create new jobs, and the best way to increase effective demand is to have money in the pockets of those who are NOT wealthy, compared to those who are. Not to digress but I read Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st Century last year. One of the most fascinating parts was how he described how those who already had wealth saw their wealth increase in value at least as quickly as the owners of what we can refer to as the new economy. In other words the Lauder family fortune, which was "new" over a hundred years ago, so its wealth increase just as quickly as the Gates family fortune. It was not the ability to create new jobs that was at work. It was having wealth and watching it grow that was the essential dynamic.
Again, reducing government spending is unrelated to having a flat tax. They have nothing to do with one another. I do not believe there is a persuasive case for a significant and overall reduction in government spending. By that I do not mean that there is no waste in government spending. I just don't think it is any easy matter to reduce waste significantly and effectively (meaning without cutting things that should not be cut). Similarly there is a persuasive argument that in certain ways government spending should be INCREASED, such as on infrastructure and investment in education.
