How Replicans can change the narative

[davevh]

For decades and in every election cycle, Democrats have exploited class envy to gain votes. This emotion has provided the Democrats a powerful sword that they repeatedly use to pound the Republicans relentlessly. The Republican’s response has limited effectiveness in converting Independents and Democrats. I would like to suggest an effective strategy to counter this. The Republicans should put forward a tax policy where we have one tax rate for all earned and unearned income. This can be made acceptable to the Republican electorate because:
1) It’s a flat tax
2) Money is shifted from the very high earners to high earners (and small businesses)
The Democrats will reject this plan because:
1) It’s a flat tax
2) It burdens low and fixed income tax payers
3) It softens a powerful sword that they use to hammer Republicans
4) Its rigid in that it limits Congress’s ability to implement tax policy
If the Democrats reject this plan then the Republicans win. If the Democrats accept this plan, the Republicans win. If the Democrats counter, the Republicans win.
After this plan is publicly proposed, the Republican can respond to the Democrats use of the class warfare card, the 99% card, and the Republicans only care about the rich card as follows:
“We proposed a tax policy to the Democrats where anyone making more than someone else will pay a higher effective tax rate, but the Democrats prefer the current tax system where the Warren Buffets of this world pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. For decades, the Democrats have been purporting that they are for such a tax policy but now that the Republicans have proposed one, the Democrats retreat. This shows the true colors of the Democrats. They are only interested in tax fairness if it is to their political advantage.”
Republicans should advocate the usage of the term “effective tax rate” arguing that the effective tax rate represent what tax payers actually pay – what actually comes out of their pockets. It takes into account both the tax rate and the personal exemption that, in effect, makes this tax policy progressive. Republicans should also argue that any other term other than the “effective tax rate” is misleading because it doesn’t represent what people actually pay in taxes.
Still the Democrats can effective argue item 2 above that this proposed tax policy burdens low and fixed income tax payers. As part of the plan, Republicans should counter this by demonstrating flexibility in the size of the personal exemption. This is where the Republicans need to have the new battleground in tax policy – the size of the personal exemption. By raising the personal exemption to effectively counter item 2, the Republicans will reach out to these voters. This also address item 4 in that Congress still has the ability to make the tax system as progressive or non-progressive as it want by raising or lowering the size of the personal exemption.
By advocating this tax policy, the Republicans can take the high ground and accurately argue that they are for a “make more, pay more” tax policy and the Democrats prefer the current “make more, pay less” tax policy. Republicans turn the Democrat’s talking points upside down and disrupt the very core of their appeal to their own constituency and effectively counter the class warfare card.
If you agree that this is the best approach for Republicans then feel free to spread this message to others in the hope of developing a grassroots movement to help our Republican politicians be bold, change the narrative, and better the country.
Dave von Hausen

 

[LoneLaugher]

Damn! It is an amazing plan! So simple. It is amazing that such a simple plan can solve our most complex problems! And the bonus is that the GOP will benefit from being son damned simplistic. amazing!

 

[occupied]

No republican will ever vote for a tax plan that does not shift the tax burden downward to the tax brackets that have not seen wage growth in thirty years.

 

[OKTexas]

No republican will ever vote for a tax plan that does not shift the tax burden downward to the tax brackets that have not seen wage growth in thirty years.

Wage growth has nothing to do with taxes. But you guy never appear to have the ability to stay on the subject.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What is a Replican? Is that a cousin of the Leprechaun?

 

[Dragonlady]

No Republican would ever vote for a plan which would put every tax lawyer and accountant in the land, out of business. In fact, the Republicans have adamantly opposed a flat tax every time the discussion comes up because wealthy individuals and businesses would have to pay far more in taxes than they do now. A flat tax is payable on gross income, not net, so individuals would not have basic deductions, deductions for spouses, dependents, mortgages, or other expenses. If the tax rate is 10% and your income from all sources is $100,000, you pay tax of $10,000. Businesses which operate on net profit margins of less than 10%, would have to increase their prices to cover the cost of the increase in taxes. Sell your house - that's added to your net income for the year and 10% goes to the government - not on the capital gain, but on the sale price, because all income from all sources is treated the same.

The 1% are adamantly opposed to flat taxes.

 

[FollowtheMoney]

Professional politicians working to further their careers. They do this by legislation and litigation for profit. They buy sell and trade law in exchange for political capital, they then use for re-election purposes. This what the parties in power are all about.

 

[occupied]

No republican will ever vote for a tax plan that does not shift the tax burden downward to the tax brackets that have not seen wage growth in thirty years.

Wage growth has nothing to do with taxes. But you guy never appear to have the ability to stay on the subject.

It has everything to do with taxes, the backs of the working poor is where republicans seek to balance the budget, with wages flat for so long I wonder where they think they can squeeze more out of such an already hard pressed to survive segment of the population.

 

[FollowtheMoney]

I've been a supporter of a flat tax for years. Professional politicians and their supporter don't like a flat tax because it's too simple and too fair. It leaves no room for legislative bartering for political capital.

 

[OKTexas]

First a flat tax should be used to eliminate the ability of government to engage in social engineering, so there should be zero exemptions, excluisions or deductions. Tax equality is paying the same tax on the same income, how you chose to live should never enter the equation.

Second comment is on your writing style, mixing metaphors is something you need to avoid, swords are rarely use to pound or hammer, those functions are ususally reserved to clubs or hammers. But over all not too bad.

 

[OKTexas]

No republican will ever vote for a tax plan that does not shift the tax burden downward to the tax brackets that have not seen wage growth in thirty years.

Wage growth has nothing to do with taxes. But you guy never appear to have the ability to stay on the subject.

It has everything to do with taxes, the backs of the working poor is where republicans seek to balance the budget, with wages flat for so long I wonder where they think they can squeeze more out of such an already hard pressed to survive segment of the population.

Really, tell me if wages are flat then taxes would also be flat under a flat tax, so how can it increase the burden on anyone?

 

[FollowtheMoney]

A Flat tax, Term limits and Tort reform are essential to repairing the damage done by the professional politicians. They offer no solutions to the problems they've created.

 

[Darkwind]

No republican will ever vote for a tax plan that does not shift the tax burden downward to the tax brackets that have not seen wage growth in thirty years.

Wage growth has nothing to do with taxes. But you guy never appear to have the ability to stay on the subject.

It has everything to do with taxes, the backs of the working poor is where republicans seek to balance the budget, with wages flat for so long I wonder where they think they can squeeze more out of such an already hard pressed to survive segment of the population.

An outright lie.

Conservatives seek to question the spending of government and limit it to only its Constitutionally authorized levels. Bring spending under control and the need for high taxes cease.

 

[AmyNation]

Wage growth has nothing to do with taxes. But you guy never appear to have the ability to stay on the subject.

It has everything to do with taxes, the backs of the working poor is where republicans seek to balance the budget, with wages flat for so long I wonder where they think they can squeeze more out of such an already hard pressed to survive segment of the population.

An outright lie.

Conservatives seek to question the spending of government and limit it to only its Constitutionally authorized levels. Bring spending under control and the need for high taxes cease.

When would you say was the last time spending was under control?

 

[Pheonixops]

Wage growth has nothing to do with taxes. But you guy never appear to have the ability to stay on the subject.

It has everything to do with taxes, the backs of the working poor is where republicans seek to balance the budget, with wages flat for so long I wonder where they think they can squeeze more out of such an already hard pressed to survive segment of the population.

An outright lie.

Conservatives seek to question the spending of government and limit it to only its Constitutionally authorized levels. Bring spending under control and the need for high taxes cease.

Who are those conservatives you are referring to?

 

[akelch]

No Republican would ever vote for a plan which would put every tax lawyer and accountant in the land, out of business. In fact, the Republicans have adamantly opposed a flat tax every time the discussion comes up because wealthy individuals and businesses would have to pay far more in taxes than they do now. A flat tax is payable on gross income, not net, so individuals would not have basic deductions, deductions for spouses, dependents, mortgages, or other expenses. If the tax rate is 10% and your income from all sources is $100,000, you pay tax of $10,000. Businesses which operate on net profit margins of less than 10%, would have to increase their prices to cover the cost of the increase in taxes. Sell your house - that's added to your net income for the year and 10% goes to the government - not on the capital gain, but on the sale price, because all income from all sources is treated the same.

The 1% are adamantly opposed to flat taxes.

Why does everyone think that taxing income is a good idea...even if it is a Flat rate?

 

[GoneBezerk]

What's with the liberal scum making fun of Christ on the cross???

Some attack on the Christmas season I guess.

It's not enough to steal an election, now they need to insult Christians who aren't bothering them.

 

[Dragonlady]

In order to get spending under control, you have to cut the military and reduce spending on weapons. Nobody ever suggests that. Spending on the high tech weapons and wars iis what put the country into this huge deficit hole. But cutting military spending will also put American workers out of jobs, and American military personnel out of work so it's a double edged sword.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yeah, idiot.

The DoD budget IN THIS COUNTRY is only 18% of the Federal budget. So tell us Canuck....is 18% the majority of the Federal budget????

Come on, there is no exchange rate involved.

In order to get spending under control, you have to cut the military and reduce spending on weapons. Nobody ever suggests that. Spending on the high tech weapons and wars iis what put the country into this huge deficit hole. But cutting military spending will also put American workers out of jobs, and American military personnel out of work so it's a double edged sword.

 

[Dragonlady]

Really, tell me if wages are flat then taxes would also be flat under a flat tax, so how can it increase the burden on anyone?

Well, it wouldn't increase the burden on those who haven't had a raise in years, but it will increase the tax burden on those in the highest income brackets. If I paid a flat tax rate of 10%, my personal taxes would go down, but there are a lot of high income households in the US who pay no federal tax either and their personal households are going to suddenly be paying out high 5 and 6 figure amounts.

And the real estate market will tank, again. When people have to start paying 10% flat tax on their house sales because gross income from all sources is taxed, they'll tend to hang onto that old shack a while longer. Again, if the old shack sells for $1 million plus, it's a whole lot more tax than selling a $150K bungalow.

I've wanted a flat tax all of my working life but I know all too well it'll never happen. I'd pay less than half the tax I do now.