Tiberius Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/ Since we are already running deficits and this plan by a "populist" supposedly evens the playing field, will it be revenue neutral or will we average Americans have to pay more to make up for the tax cut for the wealthy this will represent?* If it is to be accompanied by firing government workers and increasing unemployment, how many will lose their jobs? I see he is already planning to pay for this in part by taking away poor people's health insurance Health Care: Repeal every word of Obamacare and restore patient-centered health care with greater choice provided by a free market. *Wealthy people are defined as those in the higher tax brackets that will be eliminated under the Cruz plan.
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 It's about time everyone paid their fair share.
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 It's about time everyone paid their fair share. Who isn't paying enough?
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Who isn't paying enough? I'd say anyone with a net income-tax liability of less than 15%.
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Who isn't paying enough? Well off the top of my head I'd say anyone making under $90,000
starrymessenger Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Who isn't paying enough? Tax evaders abetted by the wealth management divisions of Swiss and other European banks, and generally individuals and corporations who have the resources to hire expert advisors who can find a way. Amazing how the US tax law enables conglomerates like Tyco to avoid the corporate income tax by setting up brassplate "head offices" offshore. Oh yeah, they do also hold their annual meetings there - anyone up for a trip to Bermuda? For a country that is generally not shy about asserting the extraterritorial effect of its laws its amazing how easy it can be to neuter them. Meanwhile I have no doubt that IRS agents are good at beating up on the little guy they can easily get their hands on because he's not in Bermuda. I'm sure that rich folks would like a non-progressive rate structure and a flat 10% tax. Net marginal rates I would think are for them normally much higher even after application of deductions and credits. And the source of the alleged increased investment is obviously tax savings so whoever is most saving taxes is presumably investing - unless he's just giving it to the Swiss bankers of course. In fairness, an effort is made to correct abuses. When Swiss banks were threatened with loss of their US banking licences it resulted in emergency meetings of the Swiss federal and Cantonal governments, better oversight and large fines. Thing is it usually takes a long time to uncover wrongdoing or practices that are contrary to tax policy even if they are not unlawful. It can take decades. At the end of the day, the top 1% of the tax paying public don't account for much of the national revenue. The rate structure is there more to promote tax equity amongst the different tax paying classes. As for the argument that a flat tax simplifies the tax system and therefore the costs of tax administration, I would doubt that the progressive rate structure accounts for much of the Code's volume. Tax is quite simply too powerful an instrument of social and economic policy, whatever your policy preferences may be, for tax laws to be meaningfully simplified at the end of the day. If you cannot even simplify and clarify the NFL rulebook, good luck taking on the Code and the regulations.
B-Man Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton 10h10 hours ago A 10% flat tax? A CEO should never be paying the same rate as a kindergarten teacher. #GOPdebate Hill, you do realize that 10% of millions is far greater than 10% of a few thousand... right? My liberal sister says that I do not understand, because fair and equal aren't the same thing. This is her example
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 Well off the top of my head I'd say anyone making under $90,000 If the budget was not to go completely out of wack Cruz's plan would indeed make the middle class and poor pay more to give the suffering rich a break.
FireChan Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 If the budget was not to go completely out of wack Cruz's plan would indeed make the middle class and poor pay more to give the suffering rich a break. They would all be paying 10%. Not more.
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 If the budget was not to go completely out of wack Cruz's plan would indeed make the middle class and poor pay more to give the suffering rich a break. The budget needs to go completely out of whack.
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 If the budget was not to go completely out of wack Cruz's plan would indeed make the middle class and poor pay more to give the suffering rich a break. What budget?
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 The budget needs to go completely out of whack. You've inspired me. I'm going to make a pizza this weekend What budget? The pizza budget
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 The pizza budget When is the last time this country ran under a budget?
Nanker Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 When is the last time this country ran under a budget? I know! I know! When a Republican was President - right? Not exactly, but close. I believe it was 2010 followed by five years of no budgets - thanks to Harry-the-lying-snake-Reid. Once he lost power, an actual budget was passed in 2014. Obama has a bigger aversion to following a budget than Al Sharpton does to writing checks made out to his creditors.
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 You've inspired me. I'm going to make a pizza this weekend Yeah and you'll likely !@#$ that up too.
keepthefaith Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Tax evaders abetted by the wealth management divisions of Swiss and other European banks, and generally individuals and corporations who have the resources to hire expert advisors who can find a way. Amazing how the US tax law enables conglomerates like Tyco to avoid the corporate income tax by setting up brassplate "head offices" offshore. Oh yeah, they do also hold their annual meetings there - anyone up for a trip to Bermuda? For a country that is generally not shy about asserting the extraterritorial effect of its laws its amazing how easy it can be to neuter them. Meanwhile I have no doubt that IRS agents are good at beating up on the little guy they can easily get their hands on because he's not in Bermuda. I'm sure that rich folks would like a non-progressive rate structure and a flat 10% tax. Net marginal rates I would think are for them normally much higher even after application of deductions and credits. And the source of the alleged increased investment is obviously tax savings so whoever is most saving taxes is presumably investing - unless he's just giving it to the Swiss bankers of course. In fairness, an effort is made to correct abuses. When Swiss banks were threatened with loss of their US banking licences it resulted in emergency meetings of the Swiss federal and Cantonal governments, better oversight and large fines. Thing is it usually takes a long time to uncover wrongdoing or practices that are contrary to tax policy even if they are not unlawful. It can take decades. At the end of the day, the top 1% of the tax paying public don't account for much of the national revenue. The rate structure is there more to promote tax equity amongst the different tax paying classes. As for the argument that a flat tax simplifies the tax system and therefore the costs of tax administration, I would doubt that the progressive rate structure accounts for much of the Code's volume. Tax is quite simply too powerful an instrument of social and economic policy, whatever your policy preferences may be, for tax laws to be meaningfully simplified at the end of the day. If you cannot even simplify and clarify the NFL rulebook, good luck taking on the Code and the regulations. I think the vast majority of people would support a simpler, flatter tax system that eliminates some of the mystery that can be exploited by corps and some of the rich. I would issue a stiff challenge to you though regarding the majority of the 1%, 2% and those over $350K annual income. Vast majority of these folks are paying very high rates of federal income tax and not getting any special treatment. That and these folks are footing the country's bill for the most part. A flatter tax code where all pay more similar rates (and all actually pay) takes much of the politics out of taxation. Especially if a law is passed that says tax rates only can go up or down for all at the same time and rate. This is where we need to go IMO. Lastly, I think it's immoral for the fed gov't to take more than 25% of anyone's income (in the form of income tax) regardless of how much a person makes. If the Fed takes 25% and states take 6% on average plus FICA, Medicaid, Medicare - you're at 33%+ total. No way the taxing bodies should take over 33% of what people earn. Just my opinion. Edited January 15, 2016 by keepthefaith
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I think the vast majority of people would support a simpler, flatter tax system that eliminates some of the mystery No kidding. I have a client who just sent me her return for our meeting tomorrow. 191 pages.
starrymessenger Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I think the vast majority of people would support a simpler, flatter tax system that eliminates some of the mystery that can be exploited by corps and some of the rich. I would issue a stiff challenge to you though regarding the majority of the 1%, 2% and those over $350K annual income. Vast majority of these folks are paying very high rates of federal income tax and not getting any special treatment. That and these folks are footing the country's bill for the most part. A flatter tax code where all pay more similar rates (and all actually pay) takes much of the politics out of taxation. Especially if a law is passed that says tax rates only can go up or down for all at the same time and rate. This is where we need to go IMO. Lastly, I think it's immoral for the fed gov't to take more than 25% of anyone's income (in the form of income tax) regardless of how much they make. If the Fed takes 25% and states take 6% on average plus FICA, Medicaid, Medicare - you're at 33%+ total. No way the taxing bodies should take over 33% of what people earn. Just my opinion. Clarity is very desireable whether whether your tax system features a single rate or not. Clarity is the responsibility and should be the objective of the legislative draftsman. Thinking and expressing your thoughts clearly is an indispensible attribute of the legal system, including tax laws. My point was simply that a progressive marginal rate structure by itself probably contributes relatively little to the complexity of tax laws. Taxation is too powerful and effective a tool for the implementation of social and economic policy through its creation of incentives and disincentives that influence and modify behavior. So I think as long as your country in its various activities and endeavours is complicated, and of course it is, your tax laws will be similarly complicated. Compliant rate payers who are also high income earners probably pay more tax under the current rate structure than they would under the flat rate and of course more than low income earners. B-Man makes the point that 10% of a large number is more than 10% of a smaller one. True, but 35% of that bigger number is more than 10% of that number. Its another way of addressing your point that marginal rates are just too high. You think that higher rates for the wealthy (because they are the ones who have to pay them) are immoral. Idk if I'd put it in those terms but ultimately its probably a lever, possibly an ineffective one, against the disparity of social and economic classes. The use and application of the proceeds of taxation can obviously be a much better tool in service of the same goal. If high rates of tax are immoral at least you have the satisfaction of holding the moral high ground relative to almost every other western democracy.
Recommended Posts