Of course spending is related to revenue. But whether, where and how to cut spending does not depend on or have anything directly to do with the flat tax. Let me put it simply - if you want to cut it, you can make the case for doing so on the merits. But that case does not have anything to do with whether you are also arguing, on the revenue side, that a flat tax is the way to go. This is why flat tax proponents are problematic and misleading. They attempt to mash up a number of considerations that are independent.
I just don't think you can talk about cutting taxes, however you want to accomplish that, without also talking about spending. There's no two ways around it. It's come up several times in this thread since the flat tax immediately reduces revenue.
No. The rub is there is no plan in the plan. The devil is always in the details and there are no details. People get suckered in by these sweeping pie-in-the-sky plans but there is really no plan other than to get the suckers' votes. Show me the money. Show me how the government would have operated over the last ten years using Paul's numbers and how much my taxes would have gone down.
The VAT is a big sticking point, but what would be the percentage? Eliminating import duties would be a big problem. How much revenue would be lost and how many American jobs and products? Flat rate tax - great, but what are these new loopholes that aren't loopholes going to deduct from that? You usually sound like a fairly intelligent individual but (other than your discovery of the VAT) have thrown in with another political charlatan. Why don't you tell us why; be specific.
Wasn't the VAT tax a big source of Greece's problems? I'll hang up and listen to your responses, thanks
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0 Doesn't exactly answer your question concerning the VAT, but a good read nonetheless.
From the little I've read the major criticism of the European VAT tax was they did it on top of existing taxes. Not sure if that applies specifically to Greece.
I will say this about the VAT, a gazillion years ago when I was in college all the pointy headed goatteed academic types were all sucking each other's dicks over the VAT. The idea was that, conceptually, you never want to discourage people from earning or investing, so you shouldn't impose taxes that inhibited those activities. Consumption, on the other hand, had the lowest multiplier effect, so it was more socially beneficial to tax that part of the economy. This was back in the days when people thought our savings rate was so much lower than Japan's and that was the reason they were building much better cars than we were. Besides the fact they were building much better cars than we were. Anyway. There were also tenured professional economists back then who would defend the Laffer curve.
We have moved off a discussion of the flat tax as a specific approach to taxation to apparent confusion on your part as to the relation of that approach to spending. I am going to leave off this discussion after pointing out one last time that how and whether you cut spending is not directly related to what approach is used on the revenue side. Happy 4th.
The proposed flat tax is a 2 trillion dollar tax cut so spending becomes part of the discussion. It's not confusing. They're related.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/01/rand-pauls-tax-liberation-road-to-prosperity/#ixzz3ekF3lAgT OPINION Rand Paul’s Tax Liberation Is A Road To Prosperity LEWIS K. UHLER AND PETER J. FERRARA National Tax Limitation Foundation 6:20 PM 07/01/2015 The central issue for this presidential cycle is restoring economic growth and prosperity, which has continued to lag under President Obama for nearly seven years now, the longest period of such stagnation since the Great Depression. Central to such restoration is tax reform. Rand Paul has barnstormed into the lead on that issue, with his bold, pathbreaking, Fair and Flat Tax plan, just recently released. That plan includes just one flat rate, 14.5 percent, for everything: wages, salaries, profits, dividends, capital gains, interest, rent. Everyone pays the same rate. Capitalist billionaires will not pay lower rates than their secretaries, or kindergarten teachers. This is exactly what the Democrats have been insisting they want: Equality. For most working people, the payroll tax has become a bigger burden than income taxes. But under Rand Paul’s “Fair and Flat Tax,” the payroll tax is zeroed out for all families and replaced by the 14.5 percent rate on all wages and salaries, supplanting both income taxes and payroll taxes. The plan also includes a $15,000 standard deduction per filer ($30,000 per married couple) and a $5,000 personal exemption per family member, which means the first $50,000 is tax exempt for a family of four. America suffers under the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. But under Rand Paul’s Fair and Flat Tax, the corporate income tax is abolished, and all business and capital income is taxed under the same 14.5 percent rate for all businesses – conventional C corps, pass through S Corps, LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships. All capital expenditures would be immediately deductible, or “expensed,” just like wage expenses, which means all depreciation schedules would be abolished. All special interest, “corporate welfare” loopholes would also be abolished, as would individual deductions, except for mortgage and charitable deductions. The current Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which benefit the poor and lower income workers, would be retained. The plan would abolish entirely estate (death) taxes, and gift, telephone, and Internet taxes. The business tax would be territorial, which means foreign businesses would be taxed here for what they earn in the U.S., while American businesses would be taxed only overseas, not in the U.S., for what they earn overseas. Consequently, the plan’s business tax does not tax goods produced in America for export overseas, but does tax goods produced by foreign businesses overseas and imported into America. That strongly favors blue collar American workers, particularly in manufacturing, but does not violate international trade treaties (as this is standard practice in tax systems worldwide). The plan does advance free trade by eliminating any remaining American tariffs and duties. Because of its much lower tax rates and burdens, Senator Paul’s reform is powerfully pro-growth, encouraging greater savings and investment, the foundation for the creation of new jobs. For the same reasons, the plan encourages the formation of new businesses and the expansion of existing ones. The resulting increased demand for labor is what leads to higher wages and incomes for working people. The resulting business expansion produces greater returns and profits for savers and investors. The end result is higher economic growth, and higher GDP and national income for everyone contributing to the economy. The plan is not designed to be revenue neutral, but a major tax cut, because Rand Paul is running for president to make the federal government smaller, not to finance the same overgrown, federal Leviathan as today. The Tax Foundation, which scored the tax reform plan under its comprehensive, new macroeconomic model, in accordance with the new House rule to score all tax proposals “dynamically,” estimates 2 million new jobs would be created under the plan. GDP would grow by 10 percent, producing $2.5 trillion more in higher output and incomes. Spectacularly, wages and incomes for middle class workers and families would grow by 14-15 percent. With this booming economy, the Tax Foundation estimates this plan would reduce federal revenues by only $100 billion a year on average over the first 10 years. That is just 2.5 percent of what President Obama proposes to spend next year. With such economic growth as the foundation, our bloated, overgrown, federal budget can not only be balanced but in surplus within 10 years. Congratulations to Rand Paul’s economic team of Steve Moore, Art Laffer, and Steve Forbes, who helped develop this pathbreaking reform plan. Lew Uhler is the Founder and Chairman of the National Tax Limitation Committee, and the National Tax Limitation Foundation (NTLF). Peter Ferrara is a Senior Policy Advisor to NTLF and a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute. He is the author of the recent Power to the People: The New Road to Freedom and Prosperity for the Poor, Seniors and Those Most In Need of the World’s Best Health Care, published by Heartland.
K street has more money than Paul,. I support the idea...always have. but...the Voter remains in the way.
No. You justmade the bait and switch. Every fucking penny of government expenditures should be justified. Like a stay at home mom to her husband. the tax code is complex, for myriad reasons. Some to promote spending in needed areas, some to favor interest groups, some for the safety net. but the conversation needs to evolve beyond 'too much' (r) and too little (d)..to what, where and why...
Dude, Blocker is a lib dem big government confiscationalist, that will claim to actually be conservative. With a whiff of condesencion.
So when they educated you beyond your intellect...they didn't explain how revenue and spending, congress to form a budget? P.S. The Laffer curve says hello.
I think people need to discuss ideas with less political alliance. I'm not saying you do this, but it doesn't get much more annoying than someone who just regurgitates party politics. We all have our strong opinions and lean wherever we might but refusing to listen to someones thoughts/ideas because of what party they affiliate with doesn't help. We'll probably mostly disagree but as a good example I learned something here that had nothing to do with what either of us believes. There's no one right way to do things either. I think/hope most people want whats best for the country. More listening would probably do everyone a little good.
