Perry's tax plan: Take that 9-9-9

[NYcarbineer]

What's telling is the profound lack of interest Perry's plan is inspiring here.

 

[Avorysuds]

Paul's plan > Perry plan

Paul's plan > Cain's plan

Paul's plan > Mitt's plan

Paul's plan > Obama's plan

Paul's plan x Next


Oh I forgot, a real plan stands no chance in this election lol.... If Perry is elected the party will fall apart again, don't believe me?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Perry wants to cap federal spending at 18% of GDP? Is he fucking crazy? The 2009 budget was less than 13% of GDP, and this is his idea of cutting spending?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Perry wants to cap federal spending at 18% of GDP? Is he fucking crazy? The 2009 budget was less than 13% of GDP, and this is his idea of cutting spending?

wake up....Obama's spending has increased to 25% of GDP.....highest levels since WWII....

Obama’s Spending Spree: By the Numbers - By Andrew Stiles - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[pgm]

Anytime the government spends more than 20% of the GDP, we go into a decline, unemployment rises.

Has the government ever spent less than 20% of GDP since WWII? Did you mean 35%?

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree with you here...

And if you have the option to do it the 'old' way, how do you cut IRS expenses??

Would you pay $40 more to spend 10 minutes preparing your taxes vs. 2 hours? I would. So would a lot of people. Simpler tax returns mean less necessity to audit, thus fewer people employed.

Not me PERSONALLY cutting IRS expenses.. the government cutting IRS expenses.. if you still have to support the 'old' way, you're not gonna cut shit in operating expenses

If the tax code is simpler than ipso facto you will need fewer people to administer it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Perry is done, it wouldn't matter if he was the best candidate (he is more than clearly not) he is a drunk on stage.

Even if Perry’s plan is good it ain’t better than Paul’s and Perry has proven to still just be another liberal Neocon.

Newt or Paul for me… Cain/Mitt/Perry are all the worst the party can offer atm, that’s why the media tells us 1 of them must win.

Perry's plan is far better than Paul's, if Paul even has one. For one thing, it accounts for political reality. Paul (and his supporters) appear to be smoking crack.

 

[The Rabbi]

Income earned out of the country is tax free? Why? Seems an incentive to move more jobs overseas. Income tax must be progressive, a flat tax will create a "landed gentry" and finish our nations devoluiton (de-evolution) to a nation of halfs and half-nots.

Some of the ideas in the Op-Ed make sense, others are foolish. The fact remains if the tax code is rewritten, it will be rewritten by a Congress beholden to the power elite who have bought and paid every member of Congress. Unless and until CU v. FEC is rescinded we are and will continue to be a Plutocracy, a nation where the rich and powerful write and enforce the laws.

The US is the only country that double taxes corporate profits: once by the host country and once when it is repatriated to the U.S. The result of that is that no money earned overseas gets repatriated here.
How will a flat tax create a "landed gentry"? That is the most absurd thing you've said in at least 3 posts.
Do you think members are not bought and paid for by unions, trial lawyers, etc today? Do you think today's tax code is not the product of special interest pleading? Please.

It's not absurd; it's simply a conclusion based on historical facts and contemporary observations. Consider, homes today in default are purchased by investors whose income is earned by rent, who can rehab homes and deduct expenses. How is that not a landed gentry? As more jobs move off shore fewer Americans will be able to buy homes, and more will become renters - increasing the small class of investors whose income is derived from the labor of others. And those renters, as they become less able to legally bargin collectively for wages, will have less disposable income, which will have a negative impact on small and large business in America.

You may consider my conclusions silly, as I consider those who support a flat tax and believe progressive tax schedules are 'unfair'. But I can see no positve end if we continue on the road to a nation ruled by the wealthy. Not postive for the many and not positve for the few.

Yes it is absurd.
We had a property melt down in the 1990s. Some of the units were sold to investors. Some were sold to owner/occupants. I didnt see a landed gentry created as a result.
If more jobs move off shore they will be replaced by other jobs. Unless Obama wins re-election. You could make the same observation about agriculture. In 1880 about 90% of the people working worked in agricultural. Today fewer than 10% do. Where are all those unemployed farmers sitting around with no work?
Wages are dependent ultimately on productivity, not collective bargaining. Former members of the steelworkers and railroad workers unions can attest to this.
We are not ruled by the wealthy. We are a democratic republic thus votes count. And there are more non wealthy people than wealthy people.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The following assumes 1) All income is earned from wages, 2) No earned income credit is applied, 3) No itemized deductions are applied.


Under current tax laws, a single person with no dependents would pay $563 in taxes for the year. Under Perry's plan, the same person pays $500. So I guess nobody can say that Perry's plan increases taxes on the lower class. But, if the same person made $50,000 a year, current laws have them paying $6350, while Perry's plan has them at $7500. So it would seem that Perry's plan puts a significantly higher burden on the middle class.

Also interesting, a person making $50k a year with two dependents (a spouse and a child) only pays $2500 in tax. That, to me, almost comes across as a penalty against those without children or other dependents. Under current laws, that person pays $5938 in taxes.

A person making $100,000 a year without dependents currently pays $20,694. Under Perry's plan, that would be $17,500. So here, Perry's plan seems to shift the tax burden away from more wealthy people in favor of increasing it against the middle class. On the other hand, the same income with three dependents would be taxed $12,500 (under current laws tax would be $18,636). Significantly higher than a person with three dependents is taxed at $50k income.

At $250k income, a single with no dependents person currently pays $81,296. Under Perry's plan, $47,500. Here we see that a very wealthy person greatly benefits from Perry's plan. With 3 dependents, current laws have said person paying $78,887. Under Perry's plan, $42,500. At this point, the "no dependents" penalty seems to become less substantial.


My conclusions:

While the above numbers assume no earned income credit, the truth is that many lower income people qualify for that credit, and it reduces their tax liability under current laws. Consequently, Perry's plan constitutes an increase in taxes for lower income people. Furthermore, Perry's plan increases taxes on the middle class earners who do not have dependents. There are two groups of people who benefit from Perry's plan: The wealthy and those with dependents (i.e. those who have children and/or non-working spouses). All things considered, I'm left with the impression that Perry's system is meant to exert indirect government influence over people which would support a substantial part of Perry's ideological values. Specifically, living the "family life" and preserving the interests of the wealthy over the interests of the lower and middle classes. The question of wealth aside, I personally find it troublesome that a new tax code should essentially subsidize the raising of other people's children. I already pay taxes to educate other people's children. I have no interest in paying even higher taxes so that those same parents can now save more money. Taxes that go to food stamps, etc. for needy families is one thing. But I have no children, will not ever have children, and do not see anything proper in me having to pay higher taxes just so parents can pay less taxes. Perhaps a good alternative might be to reduce the deduction for non-self dependents to the current $3650.

The "moral value" of Perry's plan, however, cannot alone be the measure of the desirability of the plan. The functional element must also be taken into consideration. I have yet to even attempt the calculations (and I'm not sure I'll find the necessary data). But I suspect that there will be a marked decrease in total revenues from Perry's plan. While Perry speaks of the need to reduce spending, he does not offer any specifics other than his mention of entitlement reform. Considering Perry's tax plan increases the tax burden of lower income people, and considering that entitlements outside of Social Security and Medicare are a very small fraction of total expenditures, I am both unconvinced of his ability or intention to reduce spending appropriately, nor am I comfortable with the notion that tens of thousands of low income Americans might be doubly blasted with higher taxes and reductions, if not full withdrawals, of entitlement funding.

I fully support simplifying the tax code, and it would seem that nearly all Americans agree at least to some extent. Some for reasons of utility, some for reasons of "fairness" (whatever that is). However the truth is that balancing those two interests will likely not be a simple procedure. At best, Perry's plan is probably a worth while place to consider starting, just like Cain's 9-9-9 plan. But both plans are simply too simple to address the complex concerns and needs of our country.

 

[Inthemiddle]

wake up....Obama's spending has increased to 25% of GDP.....highest levels since WWII....

Obama’s Spending Spree: By the Numbers - By Andrew Stiles - The Corner - National Review Online

And Obama's an idiot, what's your point? You may as well be saying that since mud is better than shit, mud is the answer to cleaning up the kitchen floor. Let's not take what is, in truth, an anomalous example as our yard stick, mkay? It's bad logic.

 

[Avorysuds]

Perry is done, it wouldn't matter if he was the best candidate (he is more than clearly not) he is a drunk on stage.

Even if Perry’s plan is good it ain’t better than Paul’s and Perry has proven to still just be another liberal Neocon.

Newt or Paul for me… Cain/Mitt/Perry are all the worst the party can offer atm, that’s why the media tells us 1 of them must win.

Perry's plan is far better than Paul's, if Paul even has one. For one thing, it accounts for political reality. Paul (and his supporters) appear to be smoking crack.

Perry has no supporters, he has people that wanted someone other than Mitt...

BTW thx for proving your position on Paul, you don't know his plan but you claim Perry has a better one and he clearly does not.

I say we let Mitt and Perry argue who is more liberal for another entire debate.

BTW Paul polls better than Perry now.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a lot to like about Perry's plan though I would be happier if he had come in at 15% instead of 20% but I suppose we have to realistically approach the enormous debt that has been run up over the last 30-40 years, most especially under Bush and Obama, and that will require some pain.

Honest people will give it a serious look. Tunnel visioned partisans won't but that has become the expected response to ANYTHING that isn't Marxist/Socialist or promoted by a Democrat.

I also don't like the idea of keeping the existing tax code in place as a choice. I can't see how that will eliminate any bureaucracy or simplify the system at all. Again, I understand where he is coming from and he figures the only chance he will have to reform the tax code is to allow the free loaders to continue to freeload, but I think that tactic will have unintended negative consequences.

But Perry's plan is closer to what I have been advocating and supporting for a long time than anything else I've seen. I think we should keep encouraging our elected leaders to keep moving in that direction.

 

[The Rabbi]

Perry is done, it wouldn't matter if he was the best candidate (he is more than clearly not) he is a drunk on stage.

Even if Perry’s plan is good it ain’t better than Paul’s and Perry has proven to still just be another liberal Neocon.

Newt or Paul for me… Cain/Mitt/Perry are all the worst the party can offer atm, that’s why the media tells us 1 of them must win.

Perry's plan is far better than Paul's, if Paul even has one. For one thing, it accounts for political reality. Paul (and his supporters) appear to be smoking crack.

Perry has no supporters, he has people that wanted someone other than Mitt...

BTW thx for proving your position on Paul, you don't know his plan but you claim Perry has a better one and he clearly does not.

I say we let Mitt and Perry argue who is more liberal for another entire debate.

BTW Paul polls better than Perry now.

People who want someone other than Mitt sure contributed a lot of money to Perry.
GOP candidates’ third-quarter fundraising: Most of Perry’s money came from Texas - The Washington Post
Perry is leading in the fundraising race, which is more important than rigged polls. How is Paul doing in any of it, btw?
Paul's plan is to balance the budget by eliminating foreign aid and cancelling foreign military involvement. Anyone who thinks that's viable is smoking crack.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is a lot to like about Perry's plan though I would be happier if he had come in at 15% instead of 20% but I suppose we have to realistically approach the enormous debt that has been run up over the last 30-40 years, most especially under Bush and Obama, and that will require some pain.

Honest people will give it a serious look. Tunnel visioned partisans won't but that has become the expected response to ANYTHING that isn't Marxist/Socialist or promoted by a Democrat.

I also don't like the idea of keeping the existing tax code in place as a choice. I can't see how that will eliminate any bureaucracy or simplify the system at all. Again, I understand where he is coming from and he figures the only chance he will have to reform the tax code is to allow the free loaders to continue to freeload, but I think that tactic will have unintended negative consequences.

But Perry's plan is closer to what I have been advocating and supporting for a long time than anything else I've seen. I think we should keep encouraging our elected leaders to keep moving in that direction.

Keeping the choice is really no different than allowing the standard deduction vs itemizing. For most people the flat tax will be cheaper, given time and costs to prepare the return. The savings from efficiency alone will be an enormous boost to the economy.
Perry's plan also has the virtue of being politically possible and does not introduce another complex set of rules, ala Cain's 9-9-9 (or "nein-nein-nein" as I'd like to call it).

 

[Inthemiddle]

There is a lot to like about Perry's plan though I would be happier if he had come in at 15% instead of 20% but I suppose we have to realistically approach the enormous debt that has been run up over the last 30-40 years, most especially under Bush and Obama, and that will require some pain.

Honest people will give it a serious look. Tunnel visioned partisans won't but that has become the expected response to ANYTHING that isn't Marxist/Socialist or promoted by a Democrat.

I also don't like the idea of keeping the existing tax code in place as a choice. I can't see how that will eliminate any bureaucracy or simplify the system at all. Again, I understand where he is coming from and he figures the only chance he will have to reform the tax code is to allow the free loaders to continue to freeload, but I think that tactic will have unintended negative consequences.

But Perry's plan is closer to what I have been advocating and supporting for a long time than anything else I've seen. I think we should keep encouraging our elected leaders to keep moving in that direction.

I'm thinking the reason for the option is to create a win/win scenario. Since his plan would raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, allowing them the option alleviates criticism that he is raising their taxes in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. This, of course, is a political maneuver. Has he said, his plan "starts" with the option. Which I read to mean that eventually the option would be withdrawn and the flat tax would become fully phased in. But, by initially averting the criticism he would be able to garner more popular support to get it passed. By the time it were fully phased in, it would be too late for public objections to prevent it.

I disagree where you imply that only tunnel visioned Democrats will not give it a fair look. The same can easily be said for tunnel visioned partisans on the GOP side who will support it no matter what, no matter what negative consequences might be detected. An elephant can be just as stubborn as a donkey.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Keeping the choice is really no different than allowing the standard deduction vs itemizing. For most people the flat tax will be cheaper

The flat tax is really only cheaper if you're the single provider of a family, or if you make more than $100k a year. Do you think that constitutes "most" people?

given time and costs to prepare the return.

"Most" people do their own taxes, and do so in relatively little time. The people who pay to have their taxes done are usually businesses, and people who itemize deductions and don't want to spend the time hitting the calculator. Since Perry's plan preserves itemized deductions, it's a pretty good bet that those same people will still be paying an accountant to do their taxes.

The savings from efficiency alone will be an enormous boost to the economy.

That needs justification. As of right now, it's nothing but an unfounded claim.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Rabbi we get it: you're in love with Rick Perry. He wont win the nomination-and he wont become the president. Get over it.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a lot to like about Perry's plan though I would be happier if he had come in at 15% instead of 20% but I suppose we have to realistically approach the enormous debt that has been run up over the last 30-40 years, most especially under Bush and Obama, and that will require some pain.

Honest people will give it a serious look. Tunnel visioned partisans won't but that has become the expected response to ANYTHING that isn't Marxist/Socialist or promoted by a Democrat.

I also don't like the idea of keeping the existing tax code in place as a choice. I can't see how that will eliminate any bureaucracy or simplify the system at all. Again, I understand where he is coming from and he figures the only chance he will have to reform the tax code is to allow the free loaders to continue to freeload, but I think that tactic will have unintended negative consequences.

But Perry's plan is closer to what I have been advocating and supporting for a long time than anything else I've seen. I think we should keep encouraging our elected leaders to keep moving in that direction.

I'm thinking the reason for the option is to create a win/win scenario. Since his plan would raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, allowing them the option alleviates criticism that he is raising their taxes in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. This, of course, is a political maneuver. Has he said, his plan "starts" with the option. Which I read to mean that eventually the option would be withdrawn and the flat tax would become fully phased in. But, by initially averting the criticism he would be able to garner more popular support to get it passed. By the time it were fully phased in, it would be too late for public objections to prevent it.

I disagree where you imply that only tunnel visioned Democrats will not give it a fair look. The same can easily be said for tunnel visioned partisans on the GOP side who will support it no matter what, no matter what negative consequences might be detected. An elephant can be just as stubborn as a donkey.

Except you find most of those who identify themselves as on the right really debating the concepts in the 9-9-9 plan and now Perry's proposed plan and finding things to like and/or dislike in them.

I'm not seeing much objective analysis from our leftist numbnuts who take every opportunity to point out the 'sins' or shortcomings or 'ulterior motives' of the candidate and don't really offer anything in the way of constructive analysis of the proposals.

So do you like Perry's plan? If so, why? if not, why not?

 

[Avorysuds]

Perry's plan is far better than Paul's, if Paul even has one. For one thing, it accounts for political reality. Paul (and his supporters) appear to be smoking crack.

Perry has no supporters, he has people that wanted someone other than Mitt...

BTW thx for proving your position on Paul, you don't know his plan but you claim Perry has a better one and he clearly does not.

I say we let Mitt and Perry argue who is more liberal for another entire debate.

BTW Paul polls better than Perry now.

People who want someone other than Mitt sure contributed a lot of money to Perry.
GOP candidates’ third-quarter fundraising: Most of Perry’s money came from Texas - The Washington Post
Perry is leading in the fundraising race, which is more important than rigged polls. How is Paul doing in any of it, btw?
Paul's plan is to balance the budget by eliminating foreign aid and cancelling foreign military involvement. Anyone who thinks that's viable is smoking crack.

YOU CAN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET WITHOUT CUTTING MILITARY SPENDING YOU LIBERAL FOOL. Yes, liberal, that's why you like the big Government illegal supporting Perry.

BTW Paul came in third on total fundraising and he has the most MILITARY support through donated money than all the other candidates combined I believe.

Keep spending bud, soon enough a conservative might call you on your shit… Oh wait, I just fuckin did~

BAM!


Ron Paul leads in Military Donations 2011 Q3 to Republican Candidates


In all donations Q3 Paul is doing fine. http://www.republicancandidateshq.com/how-much-the-republican-candidates-raised-in-q3 I also think Paul has the most people donate to him, less huge donations and more small donations.

 

[Liability]

The 20% figure might make sense. That's a matter of numbers crunching only.

The notion of a Flat Tax is simple and appealing.

The notion that it can be imposed in a way that permits taxpayers to opt out of it in favor of the present disastrous tax code is dangerous. For once the Congress CAN levy a new tax, it will.

Like the 9-9-9 plan, it probably needs to be fine tuned and have lots of potential kinks worked out.

but unlike the Flop-in-Chief, at least Gov. Perry and Mr. Cain HAVE come forward with plans that CAN be subject to modification and fine-tuning.

If it comes down to a debate BETWEEN the 9-9-9 plan and the 20% Flat tax, we could all win. THAT'S the realm where we want the choices to be.

I wish Perry could grunt out a coherent and consistent message. But like Mr. Cain, even with his warts, he is VASTLY superior to the present infestation in the Oval Orifice.