Paul's New Tax Plan

[Free Bird]

Have at it, progressives.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/blow-up-the-tax-code-and-start-over-1434582592

[Ebsy]

Libertarian leaning candidate proposes ludicrous flat tax, news at 11!

[ElectionsGuy]

Ugh, I can't read it.

[bedstuy]

Pretty populist imo

A giant taxcut for rich people that will necessitate huge budget cuts is not populist.

[Likely Voter]

Simple math shows that this is totally unworkable. Federal revenue is around 17.5% of GDP (just like it was back when St. Reagan was Prez). If you were to tax everything (which you won't and couldn't) then such a flat tax would have to be 17.5. More realistic plans have called for 20%+ (including Rick Perry's).  So unless Paul has also announced a massive cut in the Federal budget, this would  mostly just be a big payday to the rich, f--- the poor and blow up the deficit.

[Angel of Death]

Ugh, I can't read it.

I guess Rand Paul is really going to like this requiring a subscription to read.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ugh, I can't read it.

I guess Rand Paul is really going to like this requiring a subscription to read.

The peons will need to pay if they want to see how badly they are screwed over.

[RFayette]

I like the fact he exempted the first $50K in income for a family of four.  The key for this tax plan is to actually cut spending; otherwise, it just won't work. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I like the fact he exempted the first $50K in income for a family of four.  The key for this tax plan is to actually cut spending; otherwise, it just won't work. 

So he'll cut everyone's taxes? But also increase military spending? What a joke.

[RFayette]

I like the fact he exempted the first $50K in income for a family of four.  The key for this tax plan is to actually cut spending; otherwise, it just won't work. 

So he'll cut everyone's taxes? But also increase military spending? What a joke.

I doubt Rand would actually increase military spending if elected.  Rand definitely panders...

[Ebsy]

Why is anyone treating this remotely seriously? It's obvious to anyone with basic math skills that this would never bring in enough tax revenue to even fund a seriously stripped down version of the federal government, which is already pretty streamlined and can't really shed more jobs unless you just start destroying whole departments, which no one wants. The unemployment among government workers and federal contractors that this would cause would be catastrophic for the economy, and I doubt we would even get to the point where Rand and other libertarians dubiously believe we'll have RECORD ECONOMIC GROWTH. All in all it's pretty stupid, just like every other stupid flat tax proposal.

[Matty]

Ebsy, it is pathetically sad that you think the government is "streamlined". It is a monstrosity that will NEVER get smaller as long as we have folks like you out there who are terrified of free men and women leading their own economic lives.

[Ebsy]

Ebsy, it is pathetically sad that you think the government is "streamlined". It is a monstrosity that will NEVER get smaller as long as we have folks like you out there who are terrified of free men and women leading their own economic lives.

Why would the federal government get smaller even as the population increases? Employment in the Federal Government (Including the military) has fluctuated around 4,200,000 since 1997. The population, however, has gone from around 270,000,000 in 1997 to 320,000,000 in 2014(census estimates). If you just count people in the executive branch, the "monstrous" part of the federal government, there are about 120 people to every executive branch employee in this country, which isn't ridiculous at all. But you can't see beyond your inane contempt for government, so I don't even know why I am trying to explain something as simple as the size of the federal government to you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ebsy, it is pathetically sad that you think the government is "streamlined". It is a monstrosity that will NEVER get smaller as long as we have folks like you out there who are terrified of free men and women leading their own economic lives.

Why would the federal government get smaller even as the population increases? Employment in the Federal Government (Including the military) has fluctuated around 4,200,000 since 1997. The population, however, has gone from around 270,000,000 in 1997 to 320,000,000 in 2014(census estimates). If you just count people in the executive branch, the "monstrous" part of the federal government, there are about 120 people to every executive branch employee in this country, which isn't ridiculous at all. But you can't see beyond your inane contempt for government, so I don't even know why I am trying to explain something as simple as the size of the federal government to you.

It'd be less if Bush hadn't given us very bloated Depts. of Homeland Security and Defense.

[Mercenary]

I am a big supporter of Paul's. But I am not a fan of his tax plan at all. Still it is lower on my priority list and it has pretty much zero chance of happening so it isn't like it would make me stop supporting him.

[jaichind]

Ugh, I can't read it.

Do a search on "Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over" in google and then click on the link.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The $50,000 exemption should be a basis for any new plan, but the rest of it is so dumb. Rates are mostly fine/could become a bit more progressive on top of the exemption

[Maxwell]

I'm sure even Paul knows this won't get through Congress. It's just something to rally GOPers to back him again after going after indies and General election folk with the Patriot Act stuff.

[bedstuy]

Pretty populist imo

A giant taxcut for rich people that will necessitate huge budget cuts is not populist.

It gives tax cuts for everyone. The only reason it is a giant tax cut for the rich is because you progressives tax them more than anyone.


Anyways, it's ideally supposed to reduce 2 trillion in spending over a 10 year period. His initial plan was to cut the budget by 700 billion each year, which I supported

Poor people don't pay federal income taxes.  But, they do rely on government programs as their lifeline, unlike rich people.  So, this plan would be a disaster for the poor. 

And, remember, when the Federal government slashes its budget, that affects the states.  States have less money rolling in from the Federal government, so they raise taxes.  So, this plan would raise taxes on the poor and cut their services to the bone.

Plus, imagine a sudden $700 billion cut in the Federal budget.  That would be a massive economic disruption.  What if that led to a recession or financial panic? 

You know who would be the worst President ever to deal with that sort of issue?  Rand Paul!  Rand Paul subscribes to fringe crazy monetary policy. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

Poor people don't pay federal income taxes. 

No, but they do pay FICA taxes and federal sales taxes.

Although I think this plan is beyond realistic.

Also, for those who want to read the areticle

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=http:%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fblow-up-the-tax-code-and-start-over-1434582592

[Bull Moose Base]

The only thing that stops Paul from being a guaranteed loser in a general election is his inability to get to one.

[Free Bird]

Okay. I must ask. What is this forum's hatred of rich people? What is wrong with people making their own money by honest toil and keeping it?

[bedstuy]

Okay. I must ask. What is this forum's hatred of rich people? What is wrong with people making their own money by honest toil and keeping it?

Nobody likes taxes per se.  We all hate paying taxes, but it's necessary.  The government needs a ton of money to operate, provides services and public benefits.  Thus, there's the question, who pays?

Democrats think rich people should pay more for several reasons.

1.  They have more money.  It's impossible to get $1 million in tax revenue from someone who brings in $25k a year.  So, it's necessary to bring in the necessary revenue.

2.  Money means relatively less to rich people.  The difference in happiness and resources between $1 million in assets and $800k in assets is smaller than $2k and $1k.  We should be more worried about the needy than people who have all of their basic needs taken care of several times over.

3.  Rich people hoard money, while poor people spend money and spur consumption because they need to spend almost all of their income to live.

4.  Basic utilitarian principles: The greatest good for the greatest number.  There are more poor and middle class people than rich people.

5.  Society works better with a more equal distribution of wealth.  Just think of it this way, there are talented, potentially productive children of all income levels.  But, wealth is going to distort that.  Talented, hardworking poor kids are going to be handicapped forever by growing up poor, while lazy, untalented rich kids will advance in society.  We'll miss out on the productivity of the poor kids while we suffer through the incompetence of the unfairly rewarded rich kids.

6.  Nobody earns a ton of money on their own, the famous Elizabeth Warren point.  The economy is interdependent.  The CEO relies on the poor workers here and abroad, the infrastructure built by the government, the public services, the schools to train their workers, the court system to enforce their contracts, etc.  We're all in this together.  The Ayn Randian idea that rich people are just better is just a myth created by sociopaths and propagated by the rich and powerful to fool gullible men who flatter themselves to think they'll end up CEO of Exxon someday.

[Ebsy]

If I hated rich people, I would have wanted Congress to nationalize all the banks during the financial crisis while wiping out all of the shareholders. That would have done far more to harm the rich than a progressive tax code.

[King]

Okay. I must ask. What is this forum's hatred of rich people? What is wrong with people making their own money by honest toil and keeping it?

It's dumb comments that keep me coming back.

Why do libertarians hate rich people and want to make us all poor? That should be the real questions. This tax plan and similar plans like it would destroy and bankrupt many of the wealthy in this country. There is nothing more anti-rich than a government that does nothing about poverty and expanding the consumer base.

The first thing you learn in business courses is often the first thing most people who advocate for anarcho-capitalism forget. Rich people get rich not by magic accounting and low tax rates, but by having a product that people purchase which makes them rich off the profits. That is the critical relationship. If there is no demanding consumer base, nobody can get rich. No matter what the tax code or regulatory landscape looks like.

If am I rich or an aspiring rich, the prerogative of the government in my eyes would be to create as many consumers with good jobs and good education that can buy as much crap as I can churn out.

If I'm a millionaire, who made his money in grocery stores, there is nothing I should dread more than getting a tax cut at the expense of the food stamp program. It means less customers and less money for me, because richer people still only need the same amount of food as poorer people.

If I'm a millionaire, who made his money in real estate, there is nothing I should dread more than a flat tax that gets rid of mortgage deductions. It means less homeowners and less money for me.

If I'm a millionaire, who makes his money as a doctor, there is nothing I should dread more than cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

If I'm a millionaire, who makes his money as a lawyer, there is nothing I should dread more than simplified government.

If I'm a millionaire, who makes his money in anything, there is nothing I should dread more than living a government that doesn't make sure there's money circulating from the top to the bottom at all times.