GOP’s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax

[Yapdatfool]

Now just add a 40 percent tax on all income, including capital gains, above 2M and we have a good start

If we did that, then it wouldn't be a flat tax

Perhaps that's your point

 

[BaldingSoHard]

he's talking about personal income tax why are people posting about corporate taxes?

Nah breh he's talking about all taxes everywhere.

 

[BaldingSoHard]

I don't see how this would ever get passed because it would have hardly any support from either side of the political aisle.

I wish we had a real democracy where THE PEOPLE could vote on this shyt instead of a bunch of paid off politicians.

 

[BaldingSoHard]

http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/06/rand_pauls_tax_plan_would_blow.php#.VYQ0GFVTO2x

Rand Paul's Tax Plan Would Blow a $15 Trillion Hole in the Federal Budget

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) outlined the broad contours of his plan for restructuring the federal tax system in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. He proposes replacing the personal income tax and payroll taxes with a flat-rate14.5 percent income tax, and replacing the corporate income tax with what amounts to a value-added tax (VAT). A CTJ preliminary analysis of the plan finds that it would likely cost $1.2 trillion a year and $15 trillion over a decade.
Paul’s plan would repeal the progressive personal income tax, the estate tax, and the federal payroll tax and replace them with a single 14.5 percent “flat tax” on all types of personal income. The plan would keep a few features of the current tax code, including itemized deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions and the Earned Income Tax Credit, and would create a large “no tax floor” by exempting the first $50,000 of income (for married couples) from the new income tax. A CTJ analysis estimates that the switch from the progressive personal income tax to the new flat-rate tax on personal income would cost more than $700 billion in 2016 alone.

Repealing payroll taxes, the estate tax and all customs duties would cost an additional $1.6 trillion, leaving a $2.3 trillion hole in the budget. Paul proposes to fill some of that hole with a 14.5 percent “business activity tax,” which appears to be conceptually identical to a VAT. While it’s uncertain exactly what would be included in the base of Senator Paul’s VAT, a VAT at this rate could plausibly raise about $1.1 trillion a year.

When the dust clears, this would leave the federal government with $1.2 trillion less in tax revenue in fiscal year 2016 if the plan were implemented immediately—a reduction of about one-third in total federal revenues. Over a decade, the plan would cost a stunning $15 trillion.

Sen. Paul seems unfazed by this math, arguing that these massive tax cuts would act as “an economic steroid injection” that would make it possible to balance the federal budget—something Paul has proposed he would do as President. (If this line seems familiar to residents of Kansas, it’s because they’ve heard it from their governor repeatedly over the past four years.)

But it’s hard to see how this could be possible. Even the Tax Foundation, which he cites as providing evidence that his plan wouldn’t cost anything, finds that the Paul plan would cost $960 billion over ten years when “dynamic scoring” is factored in. And the Tax Foundation’s approach to dynamic scoring notoriously assumes that while tax cuts always spur economic growth, government spending on education, roads and health care has no positive impact on the economy at all. A more clear-eyed approach to measuring the “dynamic” effect of federal tax changes would at least attempt to quantify the very real—and very beneficial—effect of public investments on the national economy.

It should go without saying that given the fiscal challenges facing America—and given the chronic deficits Congress and the President have authorized in recent years—the most sensible first step toward sustainable tax reform should be to raise more revenue. But it seems very likely that Paul’s plan would blow a trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget each year. That’s the furthest thing from a sustainable tax plan.

Realistically speaking, we'll just borrow the difference.
Float more bonds.
Suck more Chinese balls.
etc...

 

[notPsychosiz]

This is 5% higher than Herman Cain's 9% flat tax he suggested.

But really, unless tax shelters are made illegal it doesnt matter what the tax rate is in regard to the GDP and deficit. Only how much more poor ppl pay.

 

[DEAD7]

Reject exempting the poor from income tax because the rich will benefit brehs


Hate for the rich is real.

 

[Richard Wright]

If we did that, then it wouldn't be a flat tax

Perhaps that's your point

The problem wth progressive tax today is we don't separate the 300k or 1m guy from the 3m and 100m guy enough

 

[tmonster]

Reject the poor from income tax because the rich will benefit brehs


Hate for the rich is real.

I can't believe that is the only reason they would post for rejecting it, libertards! amitrite?

 

[Yapdatfool]

Reject exempting the poor from income tax because the rich will benefit brehs


Hate for the rich is real.

If Rand Paul really gave a shyt about the people, he would except the poor from all taxes, period. No debating.

Pandering to the rich while pseudo benefiting the poor is real.

The problem wth progressive tax today is we don't separate the 300k or 1m guy from the 3m and 100m guy enough

Or even the 30k family from the 50k from the 100k family.

End all taxes on everybody making less than 40k, single or family. Now that's progressive.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

I think that people don't realize in which country they are in.

If a politician came about and didn't support Israel, said that ultra-rich people should pay more taxes and we need to end all immoral wars then quite simply he:

1) Would either be attacked by both sides or be completely ignored by the media, so you wouldn't even hear about his great plan
2) they would try to dig any type of dirt on the guy
3) It would just be political self-assassination.

Listen, ya'll live in the U.S., get with it!
You all like that socialist Bernie Sanders, I'm sure many liked Dennis Kuccinich but neither of them will ever be in the oval office.
Secondly everyone criticized Ron Paul saying he wasn't serious about being president, but then when Rand is he gets the shaft.

Rich people will always be protected, that's how it will always be.
Change will never come from a president, it will have to come from the people first!

 

[Scoop]

Just raise the percent to whatever it takes to maintain current spending levels and his plan is good.

 

[Scoop]

This is 5% higher than Herman Cain's 9% flat tax he suggested.

Rand Paul's plan is 14.5% just on income.

Cain's plan was 9% on income in addition to 9% on sales and 9% on business transactions.

 

[DEAD7]

Just raise the percent to whatever it takes to maintain current spending levels and his plan is good.

Why, we spend far too much...

 

[Scoop]

Why, we spend far too much...

I agree, but the issue is tax reform fails because they have built in cuts people bytch about, which kills the reform.

Reform first, then cut.

 

[notPsychosiz]

Rand Paul's plan is 14.5% just on income.

Cain's plan was 9% on income in addition to 9% on sales and 9% on business transactions.

True. It was the 9/9/9 plan I think he called it.
But does Rand Paul just want a flat tax on Income, or is he proposing eliminating the sales tax? Cause for California for example sales tax is already 8%. So my understanding is it would then be 14% income AND still the 8% sales.

Is this correct, or is he talking about removing the sales tax or also setting it to 14.5 % ??