1 His speech wasn't that flat.  It was somewhat uplifting.

2 Obama is 20% clusterfuck, 80% miserable failure

3
3

Don't forget the stumbling. Or the f*cking, for that matter.

4 go on..

5 The Perry Plan:

Cut - Taxes and Spending
Balance - the budget
Grow - Jobs and the economy

6 There aren't 9 parts to his plan. Epic Fail.

7 If debt is slavery, what is owing $46,000 to the federal government?

8 Media Drum Circle is trying to find the beat to destroy anyone who opposes Our Heathenly Father.

9

Taxation without representation is bad. Representation without taxation is also bad.

I always joked to liberal "friends" who complain that the rich have too much influence on government that it was only fair... they are disproportionally taxed and so they should be just as disproportionally represented. That usually threw them into a frienzy that usually ended in my being called a nazi.

I like the idea of a flat tax, if for no other reason than it gives everyone a reason to hate government spending.

10 Back on the Perry express.Cain is a liar and an idiot.

11 Better then the $5.00 footlong.

12 Most predictable headline goes to the Washington Post's website:

PerryÂ’s plan likely to slash taxes for wealthy

13 This is all about hatin' on a black man!

14 I like that Perry is explaining that the SS "lockbox" is full of IOUs and that politicians have been borrowing against it for years (IIRC, probably going all the way back to the LBJ Administration). 

15 If his plan really is a flat 20% with mortgage, charity, and taxes deductions, I ran the numbers. With his plan my effective tax rate would actually rise by 2%, and trust me I am nowhere near a low tax bracket. Now I know the plan is optional, but, before it gives you a tax break you have to be making in the area of 200K a year. Now I am certainly not for tax hikes for the 1%, I'm not fond of tax cuts just for them either, and it will be impossible to sell to the electorate.

16
Breaking news......

Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Alert the media.

17 That's some freeky-deeky tax idea there. Flat - heh, that means we all share the burden and that can't be tolerated.

18

This has been a good speech.

 

19 But when you turn it upside down ...

20 He's doing almost all of this from memory. Brief glances at his notes.

Tax plan eliminates taxes on SS.

5point plan for saving SS:
1) Will preserve current benefits.
2) Ends the use of the SS trust fund for the general fund.
3) Allow young workers to invest in private accounts. "End the nanny state."
4) Return to pre-1983 law and allow states to opt-out of SS and have their own plan.
5) Raise the retirement age on a graduated basis for younger workers.

21 I'm sorry, but until David Gergen finishes his critique I can't form an opinion.

What a fucking tool.

22

CNN playing class warfare again.

23 Has CNN cut away?  I'm still getting the livestream at RickPery.org. 

24 The plan sucks, the speech sucked, and you all suck for not falling into spasms of ecstasy every time I open my mouth

25 This is all very interesting, but didn't you hear that Lindsay Lohan is to pose for Playboy? Priorities, good sir!

26

 Cut, Balance & Grow

 Energizing Ameria

I like the new campaign slogans. ...You've got to have some, I guess. And those are good ones.

 

27

Wow, he's going all in on entitlement reform.

Nice. He seems to be the only Republican willing to even talk about it

28 OMG, a Presidential candidate promising to fix something within his two terms?  How often does that happen? 

29 Perry Scheme!  Perry Scheme!

30 Still no McRib post?

31 You have my undying worship, Karl. You're the ARCHITECT, you're a GREAT AMERICAN !!!

Next up, Dick Morris explains how this creates an opening for Rudy Giuliani

32 Anyone who watches this and likes what they see and hear, please toss a couple of bucks Rick's way.

I plan to make another donation today. 

33 this plan helps me out greatly....i like it and i would vote for him because of it.......

34

I bet he has a kilt too ...

35

Wow, he's going all in on entitlement reform.

Nice. He seems to be the only Republican willing to even talk about it

Posted by: Ben at October 25, 2011 11:35 AM (wuv1c)

I've talked about it.  I'll save Social Security by reaching across the aisle.

36 The rock damnit...the rock!

37 Oh no! A lot of government services are going to go away (according to Gergen).

Who gives a rat's ass?

38 just sayin' ...

39 @33
I don't know if it would help me, but he is the only non-Paul candidate that I actually think would do some real cutting. 

Romney is too status quo for me and Cain is way to flippant. 

40 CNN is the DNC.

41 I'll save Social Security by reaching across the aisle around.

Fixed.

42 Calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Cuts to Ed, Energy, and EPA.

Calls for eliminating baseline budgeting; end of non-emergency spending in emergency bills; end of earmarks.

Rein in the NLRB.

1st day in office, freeze all pending regs and top to bottom review of all regs implemented under the JEF.

Calls for elimination of Dodd-Franks.

43 Hey, Ace! When are you going to write about Jill's extra special lady gizmo or what ever she called it? I call it a dildo that looked like a bomb.

44 All this and a purty rock with a new paint job.

45 I like "microwave plans." Good turn of phrase.

46 If his plan really is a flat 20% with mortgage, charity, and taxes deductions, I ran the numbers. With his plan my effective tax rate would actually rise by 2%,

Since my house is paid for I'll guess it would save me money and I wouldnt have to fill out and send a 50 page document to the IRS. So yes it wont benefit everyone but it will get a flat tax in the door that can be implemented over time.

47

Live-streaming it on his website is a good thing.

I wish he would post some of his speeches there too. ....Hopefully these new campaign advisors will amp up Perry's use of the internet. So far, his website has been a bit of a yawn.

48 Love it. I'm sold on Perry now. AND even if I were to pay a few percent more in taxes going flat, I might do it to save the grief and the cost of hiring an accountant. It might be a wash; and if it's close, not having to track every damn thing and fish for expenses all year is worth it to me. No stress! It's awesome for us little freelancing fish. And if it isn't a better deal, I can keep doing what I'm doing (which I hate). I love the plan!

49

Not a hint of negro dialect with that guy.

50 Oh shit!

51

It's airline policy not to imply ownership in the event of a dildo. Use the indefinite article.

A dildo.

Never your dildo.

52 Won't nibble around the edges, reshuffle of the status quo, "This is a change election" "Whether we have the courage to cut spending and create growth."

"The future of America it too important to leave to Washington politicians."

"Let's be the land of the free again!"

53 So far, his website has been a bit of a yawn.

I think it's slightly better than Romney's. 

The frustrating thing about it is that they stopped putting up the upcoming events.  They should at the very least put up a daily diary of where he was. 

A while back his opponents started spinning the "he's Fred 2.0" and it was a pain in the ass refuting that because there was no one place to go to for a listing of where he was/is/will be. 

54 I can see a rise in rape and murder from my seat on the train.

55 Great plan....worst.audience.ever.

56
re: the silly story in the sidebar

Is that the same Jill who accused Ace of being afraid of vagina a couple years back?

57 Better music!


I think he listened to us on the other thread and lost the crappy jazz.

58

Does you guys need a refresher course?  It's ALL Executive Orders these days.

59 Not full-on chubbin, but it definitely moved.

Somewhere in the Mittsy HQ, they're trying to figure out how to get the focus back on Romneycare.

60 @20% Isn't that a bit much? I mean if we're being bold and all that stuff?

61 Where are they going to find a meat locker big enough for all those IRS employees?

62
Who travels with a vibrator?

Are you that horny all the time that you can't go a week without sticking your vibrator inside your ass?

63 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

I couldn't watch.  Is the plan as solid as I was hoping from the blurbs I'd heard?

64 Prediction:  Using "Made in America" as the song playing at the end is going to get the "Perry is a birther" folks going. 

65

A dildo.

Never your dildo.

 

Looks like a dildo. 

Smells like a dildo. 

Tastes like a week old tuna sandwich.

 

66 Still no McRib post?

Its not even lunch time on the east coast, be patient - it will come.

67
Ass and whatnot, that is.

68 I couldn't watch.  Is the plan as solid as I was hoping from the blurbs I'd heard?

I think it's good.  Club for Growth thinks it's great. 

69

Are you that horny all the time that you can't go a week without sticking your vibrator inside your ass?

Yeth!

70 Calls for eliminating baseline budgeting Posted by: Jimmuy This is huge and have been waiting for someone to bring it up.

71 12% or less, or go the fuck home, Perry..

72 this plan is too convoluted.  It's either a flat tax or not.  Opting in or out, deductions, exemptions, etc. will actually make the whole system even more convoluted.  I no likey.  Try again

73 You have to start somewhere, Concern Trolls 71 and 72 (who I've never seen here before).

74 I like the idea of a flat tax. Specifically, everyone earning an income pays 10%, period.

75 All you people who think you have a better plan are free to run for president. 

76 Until someone shows me that eliminating charitable deductions would not decimate charities and result in expanded government programs, I think we need to keep them. 

77 @76 Or free to vote for whomever we wish or not vote.

78 Perry for Prez

Forbes for Sec Treas

Palin at Energy

Bolton at State

Romney the assistant undersecretary of the department of those guys who make sure the ingredients are listed properly on the food labels

79 I mean if we're being bold and all that stuff?

It may be, and the nice thing about this being a "plan" is that he can monkey with that specific number until it works better, if necessary.  What this says is "I'm serious about a flat tax, I'm serious about entitlement reform, and I'm serious about balancing the budget."

80 73 You have to start somewhere, Concern Trolls Cainiavs 71 and 72 (who I've never seen here before).

81 @72 It's no more convoluted than what we have now, because if you like your tax plan, you can keep your tax plan. Don't be such a negative-nelly. Some of us are chomping at the bit to file-by-postcard. You'll still get the usual gazillion pages to file if you like. And we get what we like. So what's not to like?

82

70, IF it can be made to stick this time.

The GOP lost the baseline budgeting battle in the mid 90's when they let spending more than was spent the year before get spun as "draconian cuts".

90% or more of the electorate doesn't understand there's automatic increases baked in and doesn't care to learn or understand what that means.

83 Why does Rick Perry think the federal government is entitled to 20% of my pay? Is this conservative nowadays?

84 Anything that simplifies the tax system would be good for the economy, whether Cain, Perry, or Huntsmans plan.

Actually cutting real spending, just $1, would be good for the economy.

I can't bring myself to believing anybody until it happens.

85

Wow, he's going all in on entitlement reform.

Nice. He seems to be the only Republican willing to even talk about it

HEY!

86 Since my house is paid for I'll guess it would save me money and I wouldnt have to fill out and send a 50 page document to the IRS. So yes it wont benefit everyone but it will get a flat tax in the door that can be implemented over time.

You'll probably be wrong unless you make wads of cash.
Under the current system...
If you deduct nothing..
You need to be making 215k married or
113K single in order to have an effective tax rate greater than 20%.
And that's with no deductions.

Again this will only benefit probably the top 2% of tax payers. The rest would find monetary benefits to using the old system. Which is fine because you won't be asking anyone to pay more taxes. BUT this will get played by the MSM as a tax cut for the top 2%, and I am not going to defend that hill.

87 We shouldn't even attempt to change things or make them better. We should just keep the status quo and pray that it all works out. All plans, even those not conceived of yet, suck! They all suck!

88 Repatriation sounds good.. and I'm for it.  However, if it sounds oddly familiar, it should.  Congress did this already in 2004.

http://tinyurl.com/4y9r32y

On Oct. 22, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, which includes a provision that allows U.S. corporations to repatriate earnings attributable to foreign business operations at a greatly reduced tax rate.

Under the new law, a U.S. corporation with a stake in certain foreign corporations may make a one-time election this year to deduct 85% of the qualifying cash dividends that it receives from the foreign corporations. Companies can shift foreign earnings to their U.S. headquarters at an effective 5.25% rate, instead of the typical 35% corporate rate

Repatriations increased by over 1% of GDP following that tax holiday.  A total of over $800 Billion was repatriated. That is more than Obumblefuck's stimulus did to our economy, so I guess it is worth a try!  But only if accompanied by a corporate tax decrease and getting rid of regulations.

http://tinyurl.com/3r2qfbr

89 Anyone else noticing that the Perry website has been updating....like in the last few minutes? I have had two windows open to it, and it's been updating as I watch.

90 The thing I like best about the plan is the opt in/out. How can the dems argue against that? We will never get the perfect plan in one fell swoop it will take time to dismantle the beast.

P.S. Actually as I wrote "how will the dems argue"... I answered it myself

That fat cat is paying less EAT THE RICH

91 You have to start somewhere, Concern Trolls 71 and 72 (who I've never seen here before).

I've seen them before.  I don't recall if they were trolling then, or not.

However- @71/72- Name someone who has a better plan.

Two notes: any plan that increases the number of ways in which I'm taxed is not a better plan.  Any plan that can not be explained in 10 or fewer bullet points (really 5 or fewer, from an 'effective communication' standpoint) is not a better plan.

92 Specifically, everyone earning an income pays 10%, period.

Vic and I argue about this.  If you only make 10k a year, you don't have the $1000 to pay the tax.  The pain of the mandatory FICA taxes on "the poor" is what gave rise to the horrid EITC credit. 

I think that income taxes should only be on the excess about bare cost of living so you need a standard deduction. 

The problem, of course, is keeping the politicians from raising the "cost of living" deduction to put all the cost back on the middle class.

93

Perry's plan is irrelevant.  He has little chance now of being elected. The most recent poll shows him running behind Cain, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul, even among Tea Partiers.

 

http://tinyurl.com/3qeswnh

---

Good thing its irrelevant, because its also pretty stupid.  In addition to making an already complicated tax code even more complicated, Perry will allow deductions for state taxes that benefits blue states but won't allow the child tax credit that benefits conservative families?  What a big FU to the base.

 

I like some of the non-tax elements though, like the stuff on regulation.  And the stuff about the taxation of overseas corporate income is smart.

Hopefully Perry can defend some of these points well enough that it drags the debate to the right.  Yeah, I know, but I can still hope.

94 the smoking man just took another deep, satisfying drag while listening to this speech. Yeah, me too.

95 @84 IF you like your current plan, you get to keep it. Brilliant! You choose what works best for your family, I choose what works best for mine. Who could be a'gin it? This is an awesome plan becuase of the 'choice' factor. Not much you can throw at it that will stick, because of that. Power to the payer, and what not.

96 Under Perry a family of four has to make more then $50K before it would pay any taxes (and that's before deductions for local taxes, mortgage interest etc)

Here's a picture of his flat tax card.

97 I like what I heard. It seems relatively straightforward and the idea to eliminate baseline budgeting is good too (and I'll probably take home more under this plan). Don't know about recycling W's private retirement account idea -- it didn't exactly catch fire the first time around. The big question is: Is this too little, too late for Rick?

98
If Rick Perry was clever he'd end his speech with, "I'll send a copy of the plan to the White House and make sure it is written so a 4th Grader or Joe Biden can understand it."

99 "I don't like plans that call for a zero percent rate." wtf?

100 I laugh at you and your silly polls.

He has the dough and the infrastructure to annoy the hell out of Romney for several months.  And Cain is a clown. 

101 i'm liking that it eliminates the death tax and tax on capital gains.....would i be happy if it was a 10% flat tax? yes...but if i have a choice between using the current system or this one....i choose this one........

102

He'd also make sure Warren Buffet's Corporation, Berkshire Hathaway, pays its "fair share" by paying the IRS the billions in back-taxes the corporation still owes.

*I'd hope*

103 Plan looks good, but why 20%?  17-18% is more in line with the average net take, if my memory's not playing tricks on me.  It would also be an easier sale, likely as not.

Is the SS withholding eliminated by this plan?  If it is, I can see why the 20%.

Personally, I'm just stoked to finally hear people putting forward plans.  That's why Cain got the traction he did--he had a plan.  Maybe not a very good or well thought out plan, but a plan nonetheless.  Folks react to that.

104 @103 Yeah, I like those ideas too, it's just I want the conversation readjusted in the direction of 10%.

105 IF it can be made to stick this time. The GOP lost the baseline budgeting battle in the mid 90's when they let spending more than was spent the year before get spun as "draconian cuts". 90% or more of the electorate doesn't understand there's automatic increases baked in and doesn't care to learn or understand what that means. Posted by: Scott J Agree but I think times are real different now and more people are paying attention. We are broke. Heck, we are talking about reforming all entitlements... who would of that that was possible?

106

I'm still not voting for Rick Perry. He's just as much of an asshole as Barack Obama is.

He's also from Texas, which has a history of siring presidents that have pretty much buttporked the rest of the country. See Lyndon Baines Johnson, GHWB, etc.

107 Until someone shows me that eliminating charitable deductions would not decimate charities and result in expanded government programs, I think we need to keep them.

Would you stop giving?

108 When a lib cries about Perry's flat tax ask them how much GE or Bershire-Hathaway paid last year.

109 15 If his plan really is a flat 20% with mortgage, charity, and taxes deductions, I ran the numbers. With his plan my effective tax rate would actually rise by 2%, and trust me I am nowhere near a low tax bracket. Now I know the plan is optional, but, before it gives you a tax break you have to be making in the area of 200K a year. Now I am certainly not for tax hikes for the 1%, I'm not fond of tax cuts just for them either, and it will be impossible to sell to the electorate.
Yeah, I make nice money and my taxes would likely go up under this plan.  So, yeah, its mostly a tax break for high earners, and a tax raise for extremely lazy people.  The good news is that it probably won't take too much more time to work through the numbers each year and decide that Perry's plan does nothing for me.   The non-personal income parts of Perry's plan are actually sensible.  Too bad he felt he had to imitate Cain with a gimmicky tax plan.

110 good god, here we go with the perriwinkle-mania again, and the demonization of everyone else that goes along with it.

111

9-9-9

Say it with me now people!!!

112 Why does Rick Perry think the federal government is entitled to 20% of my pay?

That's just stupid.  If you're going to argue that point (logically) then they shouldn't be"entitled" to any of your pay, and we should move back to a sales tax / tariff plan.  Since that isn't going to happen, we'll have an income tax.

Once you have an income tax, it's not a question of how much the government is "entitled" to, it's a question of what is most practical from a variety of standpoints.  10% from everyone is not going to pay the bills- whether we like it or not.  It may eventually, but it won't right now.

As said previously- you have to start somewhere.

113 He's also from Texas, which has a history of siring presidents that have pretty much buttporked the rest of the country. See Lyndon Baines Johnson, GHWB, etc.

Well, at least your reasons are not at all shallow or moronic.

114
OT

Is is me, or does having a security detail comprised of hawt female bodyguards really bring into question that Hillary/Huma relationship thing?

Found at SayUncle

Hillary's Angels

115 The Herbamittens are strong all of a sudden. Imagine that?

116

"Too bad he felt he had to imitate Cain "

9-9-9 baby you tell them. Just ignore my ability to appear like a idiot when I open my mouth.

117 Actually, the "you get to choose" aspect seems gimicky to me, as if he hasn't thought the whole thing through and just wants to appeal to everyone. Makes the whole thing seem desperate.

118 HOLD FAST

119 Would you stop giving?

The people it would influence are the wealthiest folks who are the ones who shoulder the load for these charities.  They do make their charitable plans with tax advisors at their hip. 

Estimates are that between $3 and $6 billion would leave the charitable sector if deductions are eliminated. 

IIRC about 80% of all social services is currently handled by the private sector.  Do you want to shift that to the government?  I don't. 

Fucking with philanthropy in this country is a quick path to turning us into Europe which is well-known to lag behind the U.S. in giving.

120 i just did the math....i save 1/3 of what i paid this year alone......i'm pretty much convinced.....this plan works for me......

121 "I don't like plans that call for a zero percent rate."

I personally like them, but they don't sell.  The only hope of getting anything passed (unless you're willing to completely decimate your own party in the process) is if it sells fairly well with the public.

122

It might be a wash; and if it's close, not having to track every damn thing and fish for expenses all year is worth it to me.

Sorry, but if you're free-lance, your expenses are probably above the line deductions, so you'd still have to track them all.

123 112 good god, here we go with the perriwinkle-mania again, and the demonization of everyone else that goes along with it

The demonization is coming from the Anybody But Perry crowd. 

Why this thread has to have anything other than a discussion of the merits of Perry's plan is beyond me.  But have at it, folks. 

124 @114 You know what I think is "stupid?" Is apologizing for the government's confiscatory tax rates by claiming that won't pay the bills. That's crap, and certainly not conservative. If you want to defend Perry's tax plan, then fine, but one thing Perry and his supporters should know by now is to not defend his positions by arguing from the liberal viewpoint.

125 A strong comeback for someone I had written off. Second look for me.

126 Actually, the "you get to choose" aspect seems gimicky to me, as if he hasn't thought the whole thing through and just wants to appeal to everyone.

It seems weird to me, too, and I want more specifics on exactly how that would work.

However, I'm willing to give it a pass to get us actually moving toward a flat-tax.

And basically every other part of the plan that I know about sounds nearly perfect to me.

127 McRib lifts McDonald's Stock to all time high.

128 @129
That should make Michelle O. go all Incredible Hulk on them!

129 OT from Hot Air:

OWS is over after Tuesday:

Friends, mediation with the drummers has been called off. It has gone on for more than 2 weeks and it has reached a dead end. The drummers formed a working group called Pulse and agreed to 2 hrs/day at times during the mediation, and more recently that changed to 4 hrs/day. ItÂ’s my feeling that we may have a fighting chance with the community board if we could indeed limit drumming and loud instrumentation to 12-2 PM and 4-6 PM, however that isnÂ’t whatÂ’s happening.

Last night the drumming was near continuous until 10:30 PM at night. Today it began again at 11 AM. The drummers are fighting among themselves, there is no cohesive group. There is one assemblage called Pulse that organized most of the drummers into a group and went to GA for formal recognition and with a proposalÂ…

At this point we have lost the support of allies in the Community Board and the state senator and city electeds who have been fighting the city to stave off our eviction, get us toilets, etc. On Tuesday there is a Community Board vote, which will be packed with media cameras and community members with real grievances. We have sadly demonstrated to them that we are unable to collectively 1) keep our space and surrounding areas clean and sanitary, 2) keep the park safe, 3) deal with internal conflict and enforce the Good Neighbor Policy that was passed by the General AssemblyÂ…

In the meantime, there are other drummers who refuse to acknowledge OWS or the GA as a body they are interested in, and these drummers show up on site when they fell like it and drum when they feel like it. Over the weekend, it was for 10 or 11 hours straight, until late night.

So in the meantime, while we are grateful for the negotiations and positive relations with Pulse, we recognize that the issue of whether weÂ’re evicted over drumming or not remains. For that reason we are asking for people to show up during quiet hour shifts, to ensure that drumming does not start.

Save the whales and the drum circles!

The OWS guys and gals may be getting the education that they didn't get at Harvard and Yale.  Such things as a degree in Marxist feminist haiku qualifies you to only crap in the park.  Everybody doing their own thing results in absolute chaos.  Anarchy is not the answer, anarchy is chaos.  Property rights are good things.  Those who shout the loudest often know the least.

130 Is the SS withholding eliminated by this plan?  If it is, I can see why the 20%.

Personally, I'm just stoked to finally hear people putting forward plans.  That's why Cain got the traction he did--he had a plan.  Maybe not a very good or well thought out plan, but a plan nonetheless.  Folks react to that.
Posted by: DarkLord
..........
If SS & Medicare witholding disappear with this plan, then it is a good plan.

You are paying 20% of the total AFTER all the deductions. 

That still comes out way too high for me, even after $25k in personal deductions for me and my wife, $8k in mortgage interest, etc. etc...  It's still $4k higher than what I'm paying now.

But if I didn't have to pay 7.5% out of every paycheck, then it would indeed be a good deal.

131 I really like this 20-20 plan. It's fresh, bold and marketable. I f'ing hate the idea of huckabee's Fair-VAT tax. A flat tax is so much superior. Technically taxing consumption may be better for economic growth, but i think it will also be a boon to gov growth as I believe people just don't give a shit about sales taxes. How often has state sales tax been reduced? I'm off the Cain Train and back on the Perry Ferry.

132

This is much too aggressive, all true conservative know that we need to play prevent defense. Why, by 2016, or 2020 (which is much better) we'll have a true conservative hero that will come in with all the best plans and make American strong again.

We need to wait until then and shit all over any of these, so called plans now. Prevent defense people. Man the bleachers!!

133 Posted by: Y-not is not getting her freak on at October 25, 2011 12:01 PM (5H6zj)

Soooo......would you stop giving?

134 I assume FICA must be getting phased out if he's going to offer privatization to the younger folks.

135 98 Quilly M. Is this something?  There's no line for taxes withheld.

136 I haven't run the numbers and am hoping to learn more, however, if Perry's plan results in an increased tax burden on anyone, it is a non-starter with me.

137

For ordinary middle class people, the charitable deductions, the child credits, and the capped mortgage interest deduction are the ones that most benefit the GOP base.

 

The childcare deduction, the uncapped mortgage interest deduction, and the state tax deduction favor Dem voters more.

 

There is substantial overlap, of course.  And among the very wealthy, the benefits are pretty non-partisan.

138

I have no basis for this except some common sense guidance.  But if you eliminated charitable deduction for the wealthy, you would likely cut out a lot of philanthropy giving - but it is the giving to the arts and the universities that would suffer the most.  I believe the people who give to the poor/needy/indigent give more out of the kindness of their heart and people give to their church because they feel the need to.  Thus, I suspect that the arts and universities would suffer, but "true charities" (however you define that) would not suffer much at all.  Just a thought.

139 "Too bad he felt he had to imitate Cain with a gimmicky tax plan." No, it's awesome. GOP bidding war on cutting taxes. Bring it on. After all the work the MFM has been doing trying to convince us that we all want more taxes. Truth is Hell no we don't. They are starting to get it that trimming around hte edges isn't going to get it. 9-9-9 and 20/20 and any other plan presented is NOT what will pass. The details will change. The broad strokes are what matters. Make taxes simpler and flatter. That is all.

140 Perry's plan will cause a 20% increase in rape and murder amongst minorities and children. Why does Perry hate minorities and children?

I mean, after-all, most minorities can be clean and articulate when properly trained in the service fields.

141

Hey Slublog @115:

Do the world a favor and kill yourself. I haven't payed attention to you since HotAir.

142 Okay... for those saying it wouldn't save you any money...

If I'm reading that sample card someone else linked properly, it would save me a ton of money, and I'm no where near the top bracket.

Base Salary - ((persons) x 12,500) - Mortgage Interest - Charitable Donations - State & Local Taxes - Cap-Gains & Dividends.

Even assuming that "persons" is just the adults, I'm looking at a total tax bill considerably less than I paid last year.

143

OK.... each person gets $12,500 deduction?

For a family of four thats $50K?

Add in a mortgate deduction? EASILY no tax on the first $60K or so for a family of 4...

Now... Singles, who DON'T own a Home? pay after the first $12,500.

So, those who use more societal resources will pay no taxes, while people who do not use as many resources (schools and such) will pay...

Its still class warfare... just supporting a certain government apporved lifestyle, over another.

144
this plan scares me

145 guy.....i didn't even figure in my charitable giving and still made out really well....i can tell you what though....when times are tight around here it's family first and charity gets less.....if i have more money based on a deduction charities actually makes more off me.......i don't stop giving but i give less......

146

>>but it is the giving to the arts and the universities that would suffer the most

 

Let me play my tax payer funded sad violin.

147 If the old tax scheme remains an option, tax compliance isnt going to go down by much, and certainly not by $450B+.  The end result is going to be a reduction for those paying the top rates, and nothing else.  How exactly is this a major simplification?

A 20% corporate income tax represents a tax increase on many businesses.  The loopholes etc. would be phased out.

BBA's are very tricky... our current tax receipts are at ~14% GDP, so in this (or any future downturn), major spending cuts or tax increases would end up being constitutionally required.

No mention of payroll taxes?

The rest is good though

148 So, who's going to get an exclusive AoShq interview with Jill's Dildo??

149 Soooo......would you stop giving?

I would still give, but I am a very small donor (four-figure).  My gifts make me feel good, but in the grand scheme of things they do not matter. 

If you knew anything about philanthropy, which apparently you don't, you'd realize that the folks making the five, six, seven, and eight figure gifts are the ones whose giving really matters.  And those folks do not take a dump without evaluating the tax consequences.  The numbers have been run by a number of groups and there is simply no doubt that this would negatively impact on private support for social services, health, and education. 

I do not know if anyone has run the numbers yet on how the elimination of the death tax would impact philanthropy.  A lot of folks give through bequests but I don't know if that is partly motivated by tax implications. 

150
To whom it may concern:

The sidebar is running low on fresh anti-Romney pieces.

151 Do the world a favor and kill yourself. I haven't payed attention to you since HotAir.

Haha.  Well played, sir. 

Assuming you were trying to make yourself look like a thin-skinned asshole, that is.

152 Rush is saying Cain did a nationwide buy on his show - that's pretty smart, I think.

153

136 I assume FICA must be getting phased out if he's going to offer privatization to the younger folks.

The way to fix it for the younger folks, is to secure the payments going into it & stop spending them in the general fund.

Politicians have been talking about that 'lock box' for SocSec payments for a long time....but no one has ever actually done it.

I think Perry would move heaven and earth to finally get that done.

 

154

Dave at October 25, 2011 12:07 PM

You amongst all my disciples have been the most faithful.

155

 believe the people who give to the poor/needy/indigent give more out of the kindness of their heart and people give to their church because they feel the need to.  Thus, I suspect that the arts and universities would suffer, but "true charities" (however you define that) would not suffer much at all.  Just a thought.

 

You may be right, but remember that the non-super rich who donate to charities and churches are disproportionately Republican voters.  Raising taxes on your own base is just stupid.

156 That fatcat millionaire chompchompchomp Rick chompchompchomp Perry wants to starve chompchomp your children chompchomp and the poor.  Burrrrrp.

157 Mitt Romney's plan is much better. It won't increase rapes like Cain's or Perry's, plus Mitt Romney is not from Texas so he is obviously best!

158 143 Hey Slublog @115: Do the world a favor and kill yourself. I haven't payed attention to you since HotAir. Posted by: NO on Perry at October 25, 2011 12:08 PM (PBeR5) Slublog: Talented contributor. You: Waste of skin whose father should have let you run down his leg. Winner: Slublog.

159 Ben @148.  That is my point.  I don't think true charitable giving would be impacted all that much if you phased out the charitable deduction (with a reduction in rates).  Some areas may be more affected than others, but if the wealthy do not want to give that building to whatever university they attended, who cares?  If they have been giving to some homeless shelter, they will probably continue to do so. 

160 137 98 Quilly M. Is this something?  There's no line for taxes withheld.

Posted by: jd at October 25, 2011 12:06 PM (ROXo4)

From what I understand you write a check. Instant boom in the economy.

161 I say we let the Democrats score here and then we'll have at least 50 seconds on the clock only down by 38. Everybody only pretend to tackle and we can get the ball back. Ready, break!

162 I know this may come across as selfish, but I'd kinda like to see the tax credit for adopting special needs children preserved in some form.

163 i didn't even figure in my charitable giving and still made out really well
excellent

...i can tell you what though....when times are tight around here it's family first and charity gets less.....
of course

if i have more money based on a deduction charities actually makes more off me.......i don't stop giving but i give less......
but if you had more from Perry's plan or other flat tax, you wouldn't give less if it wasn't tax deductible, right?

164 @157 - That is why an elimination of the deduction has to be accompanied by a reduction in rate.

165 Thus, I suspect that the arts and universities would suffer, but "true charities" (however you define that) would not suffer much at all.

That's not true. 

Secondly, if we would like to remove government subsidies of education in an effort to see if it is those subsidies that contribute to rising costs (which I have never seen demonstrated, btw, but I know that's a popular conservative belief), then it's essential that private gifts to universities increase, not decrease.  Someone has to pay for the new buildings and scholarships. 

166 83 70, IF it can be made to stick this time.

The GOP lost the baseline budgeting battle in the mid 90's when they let spending more than was spent the year before get spun as "draconian cuts".

90% or more of the electorate doesn't understand there's automatic increases baked in and doesn't care to learn or understand what that means.

Sessions, Ryan, and Conrad have been discussing budget reform this fall. Some of the ideas put-forward are a two-year budget, a joint budget resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, this would give it force of law), return of the line-item veto, and fixing the baseline. The appropriators are (of course) angry about the proposed changes because it would limit their power.

167 So, who's going to get an exclusive AoShq interview with Jill's Dildo?? Looking at pics she seems pretty hot, but she blogs at Feministe so guessing she hates men.

168

So, those who use more societal resources will pay no taxes, while people who do not use as many resources (schools and such) will pay...

Schools and resources like police and parks, that are used by families are paid for locally; the significant federal expenditures that have individual use (medicare/medicaid/SS) are used by all - regardless of family size.  And, keeping a positive population growth rate sustains those federal programs.  So it is in the interests of the feds to support families, and in the interests of single people to move to places with low local taxes.

169 @169 It all makes sense now.

170 I can't believe we're left with this short-list of candidates. Any one of you clowns would better serve than the nonsense running now. I swear, the people here possess the best in education (what they've tweaked out of the system), factual knowledge, an enormous amount of spit, nuts and bolts wisdom. And, maybe most importantly, a rare, wry sense of humor.

171

The Senate has been holding hearings on eliminated or reducing the charitable deductions.  Leadership of the churches has been turning out pretty heavily in opposition.  These are folks that the GOP mostly needs onside.

 

This is also true of married with kids, and Perry's new AMT doesn't do much for them, unfortunately, but keeping the charitable deduction is a good idea.

 

Actually, since he isn't dumping our current tax code, I don't see why he has any deductions in his new alternative tax, other than the personal exemptions.  It's just gimmicky and makes the postcard thing pretty much a lie.

172 return of the line-item veto

I have to ask about this: Why is it a Given in Conservative Thought that a line-item veto would be a Good Thing?

Because I'm really fairly cynical, and believe it would do every bit as much harm as it would ever do good.

173 If you knew anything about philanthropy, which apparently you don't,

Come on Y-not.  How would you know that?  I just asked a simple question.  And yes your small donations matter, much more than govt transfer payments in fact.

The fact of the matter is complicated tax policy distorts the most effective use of capital, which hurts everybody, including the poor.

174 Need more details on this plan but on the surface, I like it.  Need a side by side analysis with current vs the Perry plan.

175 Under Perry a family of four has to make more then $50K before it would pay any taxes (and that's before deductions for local taxes, mortgage interest etc)

Here's a picture of his flat tax card.

Ok, *runs real numbers*
A family of 3 (or more) you pretty much save money at every level.
For a married couple you have a bad spot you need to watch for between about 50K and 110K.
For a single person you lose out till about 55K then you start to save money.

Ok not near as bad as I thought, I could get behind this.

176 I suspect that the charities that will be hurt by elimination of charitable deductions are NOT typically conservative causes. Some mainline churches might see a dropoff, but for those who believe in tithing, writeoffs are not part of hte equation. The big charitable organizations are liberal.

177 174 return of the line-item veto

I have to ask about this: Why is it a Given in Conservative Thought that a line-item veto would be a Good Thing?

Because I'm really fairly cynical, and believe it would do every bit as much harm as it would ever do good.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 25, 2011 12:17 PM (8y9MW)

 

Totally agree with this.  Every single change like this needs to be viewed through the 'what could happen when a lib president gets hold of this' lens and see if it still seems like such a great idea.

178

>>>Isn't that a bit much?I mean if we're being bold and all that stuff?

Meh. We do have to fund government and it takes money.

There is a point where the tax rate is so low and growth isn't high enough to off set it.

Let's face it, our government needs about 18-22% of the GDP to function.

20% is fair. It's about 16% lower than it is now for the top tax bracket.

 

179 Will this bring any jobs back?

This part: Yes.  Club For Growth (quoted by Y-Not (i think) earlier) has a serious hard-on for this plan.  And, really, how could it not?  It would reduce the corporate income tax from 35% to 20%, it would make the repatriation of capital much less expensive, the reduced regulations he proposes would make it much cheaper and easier to do business in the US.

Yes, this would bring jobs back in droves.

As for the "will the poor pay?" I think the answer is "No" but not because they're taxed at 0%, but because their legitimate deductions will be enough to offset their tax liability.  As someone earlier pointed out, with the Perry plan, a family of 4 who own a house are going to pay 0 on the first 60,000/yr or so.

180 10% flat tax on income. Everyone pays who earns an income, therefore, everyone has a stake in the system. Eliminate withholding so people are forced to be aware of what they are paying and to become responsible budgeters. Period.

181 This plan like the current plan really screws single people without bastages.

182 I mean, after-all, most minorities can be clean and articulate when properly trained in the service fields and they join the SEIU.

Posted by: Smok'n Joe at October 25, 2011 12:07 PM (lcwvr)

FIFY

183 gregory of yardale that would remain in the current tax code. i guess you'd have to do the math and decide which plan would your taxes be lower in....and go with that one....

184

The Hollywood crowd has been using the Charitable Deduction for years to launder their money. ....Many of them create their own charities and run most of their gross earning through them, expensing everything from limos to personal trainers....and paying themselves as 'administrators'.

If not eliminate the Charitable Deduction....then reform it. Make it so that only the real, actual charities qualify for a deductable donation.

185 @73. I've been here for a few years (3, I think..or close to it). Who has a better plan? I don't know... who's the guy who wants to cut 1Trillion from our budget and kill off a bunch of parasitic Federal departments, including the IRS and abolish the income tax? Better plan.. no fucking income tax at all. Force .gov to eat peas instead of us. .Gov got big on the backs of the people and by the result of our labor. I want MY money.. call me greedy. I worked for it, I want it. I pay other taxes for services that I "might" use, but that someone else has has surely used and to which I contributed to. Better plan.. what's that guys' name again.. I dunno.. I forget, because the media ignores him and I guess I should too, or something..

186 Posted by: Dave at October 25, 2011 12:21 PM (Xm1aB)

You find me someone who is proposing anything near that, and I'll take a look.  But no one is.  And no one will.

So, of the real proposals that ever have even a snowball's chance in Hell of passing, Rick Perry's is among the best (if not the best) on the table.

187 @181 I'm not comparing Perry's plan to what the current system is now, but in the context of evaluating candidates in the Republican primary. The government needing 18-22% of GDP to function as currently constituted simply begs the question, "Okay, Mr. Candidate, what do you propose to change that sad state of affairs?"

188 The other thing to remember is none of the candidates plans will be implemented as written on their websites. This will end up being haggled over by the congress and senate. I just need a president that has a burning in the gut to fight for tax reform.

189 If anyone gets a read on whether FICA and HITAX survive under this plan, holler.

190

Well, shitfuckandamn, I missed it.  Had to run to the store.  But, much to my delight, Steve Forbes was being interviewed by whoever (don't know early am peeps except for Rush).  The radio dude asked him what will happen to all those unemployed IRS agents, and Forbes said he thought they probably would qualify for one of the fantastic fed retraining programs (major sarcasm).

Oh, yeah, and Forbes does not have a private jet and flies commercial, business class.  He said that Scottish gene is hard to get rid of.  It was a great interview and he highlighted many of the plans major features.

It's to his credit that Forbes is so incredibly normal (all things considered).

191 >>>I know this may come across as selfish, but I'd kinda like to see the tax credit for adopting special needs children preserved in some form.<<< This is exactly why a true flat tax system should not have *any* exemptions or deductions... once you open the door to some, you open the door to all, and you end up with a social engineering nightmare like what we have now. That's why Perry's allowing certain cherished deductions in this plan is pure gimickry and political gamesmanship.

192 138
I haven't run the numbers and am hoping to learn more, however, if Perry's plan results in an increased tax burden on anyone, it is a non-starter with me.

Posted by: Dave at October 25, 2011 12:07 PM (Xm1aB)

So, you're not voting for any GOP candidate? Because every single plan--even doing nothing--will result in an increased tax burden on someone.

Yes, I know, Romney has a 59 point "buy with trust" inspection plan that will do  . . . well, something. It's on his website and it is awesome.

193 I think the  choice part is pure genius.  It doesn't require simultaneous dismantling of the existing tax code (and yes I think it should be dismantled but it ain't gonna happen without major pain) and the institution of an alternate tax plan (like the 20% "flat") can actually be done in parallel.  I'd like to see it at 18%, but depending on how it is structured this still seems better than the current 72000 pages of lawyerly IRS BS.

194 Did I miss something? Perry's plan keeps the deductions for charitable donations. Why all the pillow biting?

195 I am a Flat Tax guy here but Perry is screwing the pooch with his "idea" which as it is stated, is not better then Cain's plan and it hurts the Flat tax argument more then it helps it because its half-ass at best. Cain's plan is simple and straight forward and the people can understand it.  Perry's plan sounds like he is trying to blow smoke up my ass just to get my vote.  Cain is sincere and actually believes in his 9-9-9 even though it too is flawed.  But Perry sounds like he is trying to make everyone happy.  Don't sell me dog shit and tell me its fertalizer.  Sell me dog shit by telling me it can be used as fertalizer.  I'm with Cain until somone who actually WANTS to change the system comes up with something better.

196 Why do the Perry jockers have to be so personally insulting with anyone who disagrees with them? Starting to remind me a lot of Obama and Ron Paul fan boys.

197 174 return of the line-item veto

I have to ask about this: Why is it a Given in Conservative Thought that a line-item veto would be a Good Thing?

Because I'm really fairly cynical, and believe it would do every bit as much harm as it would ever do good.


It's a reactionary idea to the fact that President Bush (post-2007) was stuck with spending bills in which he was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. The Democrats knew that it would be difficult for him to veto a bill that contained money for the troops, so they would keep adding spending measures for their pet projects. I understand then why some on the budget committees like the idea but I would hope there is another way to address this. 

198 @198
I was responding to people who are criticizing his plan as not flat enough. 


Here's the text of Perry's speech for those who couldn't watch the live stream.

199 What I want is some stability in the g-damn tax code.  You can't plan on anything because the code is so fucked up.

200 who was insulted? i like perry's plan....that insults you? really?

201 Sorry, I meant to say *some* Perry jockers... not all.

202 So it is in the interests of the feds to support families, and in the interests of single people to move to places with low local taxes.

Posted by: Jean at October 25, 2011 12:15 PM (WkuV6)

Sorry, but every time I hear "in the Governments interest" or "in the interests of the fed"... I cringe...

The Fed is not an entity.  It has no wants, nor desires.  People use that personification as an excuse to put their worldview into effect without the consequence of saying THEY want this to happen.

This plan, very simply, supports familys at the expense of other workers... which you may think is a good thing... but in Fairness should be pointed out.

Because in my personal belief system, the Government should allow a free people to be free, and should NOT be telling us how we should live our lives... thought the TAX system.

 

203 The government needing 18-22% of GDP to function as currently constituted simply begs the question, "Okay, Mr. Candidate, what do you propose to change that sad state of affairs?"

To which Rick Perry has already replied: "I'll cap Gov't spending to 18% of GDP."  Add that to the fact he wants to slash Dept Ed, the EPA, and various other political fiefdoms, and I think we have a recipe for dropping that number.

I'd like to see it at 18%, but depending on how it is structured this still seems better than the current 72000 pages of lawyerly IRS BS.

Doing the math, 20% comes out just about perfect.  It is, effectively, a $0 tax liability for a family of 4 that own a home and have any kind of investments/charitable giving/etc. as long as they're making 60K or less.

204

Perry's plan is irrelevant.  He has little chance now of being elected. The most recent poll shows him running behind Cain, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul, even among Tea Partiers. 

http://tinyurl.com/3qeswnh

 

Try telling that to the folks at rickstate aka redstate.com.  Perry is like a conservative messiah over there who there who simply MUST and WILL win over there, otherwise the entire country will sink into the ocean.

205 If not eliminate the Charitable Deduction....then reform it. Make it so that only the real, actual charities qualify for a deductable donation

I agree with you on that. 

There is a lot of funny business with certain operating foundations and private family foundations.  But I suspect if you looked at it as a function of total philanthropic revenue or assets, they'd still be a minor piece of the philanthropic pie. 

206 201 174 I'll add that it sounds great in theory if you assume permanent conservative control of the White House.

207 Rick Perry is so irrelevant that Mitt Romney has an entire website devoted to attacking him. 

208 205. Then you simply choose not to do the flat tax, and file normally. See how that works?

209 I think I would pay more if I had an income and all.

210 214 Again, you can choose to continue using current tax law and NOT do the postcard/20 percent dealio.

211 @208 Good start. Now, why don't we agree to cap spending at say 10% of GDP? I mean really, are we serious about reducing the size and scope of the federal government or not?

212 Cain's plan is simple and straight forward and the people can understand it.

You mean his 9-9-9 plan?  Unless its a 9-0-9 plan?  The one that sets a precedent for the Government to tax both my income and my consumption?  F that noise.

Why do the Perry jockers have to be so personally insulting with anyone who disagrees with them?

Because every argument we've heard against this plan has either been stupid, or a straw-man, or both.

It's the AoSHQ.  We respond to such stimuli with scorn and sarcasm.

213 Ignoring the fact that I think any sort of government-forced 'retirement plan' is a bad idea and not legal...I don't think SS is a viable plan unless/until we go back to an asset-backed currency (ie gold-backed) - SOMETHING to keep them from inflating away the value of the dollar. Something that ensures that a dollar saved today is still worth a dollar 50 or 100 years from now.

Since inflation is the policy of the US government, money taken from people today and stored in a lockbox will be worth much less when the person starts taking it back out, everything is more expensive, while the SS 'savings' have not grown.

So, the money in SS has to be loaned out in hopes of finding a return that is at least equal to inflation over the years - otherwise, people see what a ripoff SS is, and the pitchforks, torches, and tar come out.

The actuaries can't put that money into risky investments that may lose money; they have to go into safe investments - ie US Treasure Bills because those will never default even if it means printing more money, which it does.

When those notes are redeemed, where does the money from from? The tax revenue currently collected (ie, the General Fund).

It seems as long as there is a fiat currency, we either end up with SS being used in the General Fund (as it is used to buy TBills which are then spent on the poor and the Solyndras), and being paid out of the General Fund, or we end up with granny getting back pennies on the dollar for their 'retirement.'

Am I missing something?

214

Look, Rick Perry's flat tax plan will eventually have the same problems that Cain's 9-9-9 has been facing.  It sounds simple at first, until people start realising that it will either 1) have some sort of arbitrary cutoff point where low wage earners end up being de facto or de jure exempt, or 2) apply to everybody, regardless of income, in which case, to make it palatable, Perry will have to start adding ever-increasingly intricate epicycles to make it jump through one political hoop after another.  He's already started with the recent "20% or your current payment rate" choice. 

215 Newt has a Newt plan - Perry plan comparison up on his site:

http://tinyurl.com/3nmmfqw

216 @218 In other words, if you deviate from the Perry platform in the slightest, you're heartless.

217 220. No, blindside, that's exactly what I've always thought. Kind of a huge, glaring, structural problem with the program, no?

218

 Dave at October 25, 2011 12:40 PM

 

Rise up and smite the unbelievers my son, Go!!

219 I have been as critical of Perry as anyone - see my adjusted sig - and yet I can look at this plan and feel the love. Jeez this place has gotten weird.

220 Stupid Strawmen wearing magic underwear hardest hit.

221 @225 Just as soon as I put on my magic underwear!

222 I just figured my taxes under Perry.

I am single.. my son is no longer my dependent. I rent.
I pay a lot more.

No you don't, because you can elect to use the old code.  Which, indeed, may be a gimmick.  But it's a gimmick designed to help a plan which is, otherwise, nearly perfect pass congress.

Well... wait a minute. does everyone get a 12, 500... regardless of a dependent?

My understanding is 12,500 per person in the household.  So a single dude who rents an apartment would get a deduction of 12,500.

I mean really, are we serious about reducing the size and scope of the federal government or not?

Sure we're serious.  I suspect I'm more "serious" (in a "having thought this through" sort of way) than you are, based on this comment.  There are things the government is doing right now that, if they just stopped, would cause major disruptions.

You and I both agree the government shouldn't be doing them.  The fact is though, that we can't "just stop" them.  Even if we wanted to (and I support a phase out for a variety of reasons), it would never sell with the public.  It doesn't matter how good your theories are if they'll never get implemented.

223 228, 229 - one minute apart, same basic comment.

Clearly, Moron Nation is developing a hive mind.  World, be afraid.

224

Well... wait a minute. does everyone get a 12, 500... regardless of a dependent?

If so... I do about the same under Perry. Not worse.

If the 12, 500 is just for kids... then I am paying a lot more. Which sucks.. because I dont make that much.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp with personal items in her luggage at October 25, 2011 12:37 PM (qjUnn)

Everyone gets the standard deduction.

Some people get an additional deduction for each dependent.

225 @230 Okay, since you claim to all smart and such, walk me through your carefully considered conclusion that capping government spending at 18% is so much more realistic than say 10%. Stupid strawman will be waiting.

226

I have to admit that Perry's plan looks appealing from a numbers standpoint.  However, it moves in the wrong direction (maintaining income tax) while Cain's at least moves us in the right direction (going to a consumption tax).  There's a reason that the income tax had to be legalised through a constitutional amendment - because it was unconstitutional before.  And there's a reason it was originally unconstitutional - because the Founders knew that taxes on income are the perfect way to rob the people of their economic liberty by taking away a percentage of their own sweat and hard work.  Perfect way to get to exactly where we're at today - a "progressive" plan where large percentages pay no tax, while riding on the backs of the productive people who do. 

I like the idea of a consumption tax because I like the idea of everybody paying "their fair share," not just the "rich."  The poor ought to pay their fair share too.

227 A modest change is a start. Once we get it moving we can keep it moving.

228 Question for the morons - under Perry's plan, how much will the illegal aliens who got the jobs he created in Texas have to pay?

229 @235 Seems to me we should start with a bold plan which will eventually morph into a more modest plan, rather than starting with a modest plan what will morph into, well, shit.

230 In other words, if you deviate from the Perry platform in the slightest, you're heartless.

No, but you, in particular, are becoming truly annoying.  I never said "heartless" in any argument.  I pointed out that every objection I've seen (with one exception now, but that was after my comment had posted) has either been a monumentally stupid objection, or a pure straw-man. 

You don't get "points" here for doing that, you get scorn and derision.

It sounds simple at first, until people start realising that it will either 1) have some sort of arbitrary cutoff point where low wage earners end up being de facto or de jure exempt, or 2) apply to everybody, regardless of income

I think (think) this is already baked into the plan.  Just our paper-napkin math here at the HQ has shown that people under certain de facto sliding incomes (based on a variety of things) will pay $0.00 in income tax.

Given that such $0.00 tax liability is a function of deductions available (at least potentially) to everyone, I'm actually okay with that.  It's not the same "class warfare" idea that, simply because that guy makes more money than you, he should pay a higher percentage of what he makes.  Even if, in fact, it may work out that way in some (many) cases.

Also, given that he said, from the get-go, that you can "choose" which rate to pay- and that was one of the headlines- I suspect it is better baked in than many of Cain's changes- which seem to be afterthoughts just grafted onto what turned out to be a deceptively cool-sounding plan.

(See, Dave?  This is what a cogent argument looks like.  Instead of postulating some plan no one has and no one serious is going to advocate)

231 If you like Perry's plan, toss him a couple of bucks today.  Even if it's just $25. 

232 Rush is talking about Perry's plan now.  He gives it 10 thumbs up or somesuch.

233 @238 Funny, I think you're the one who has become truly annoying. I appreciate that you didn't use the word "heartless." "Stupid" and "strawman" are much more sophisticated terms for a "deep" thinker such as yourself. You realize that you, alone, are incapable of defining what's "realistic" or not in the political context, don't you? In any event, I am still awaiting your super-smarty explanation of why capping government spending at 10% of GDP is simply unrealistic compared to Perry's 18%. I'm sure, since you've assured us, that you will present a cogent argument in support of your contention. Stupid strawman continues waiting.

234

Perry's plan simply offers another Tax choice and does nothing to deal with our current tax mess.  If his plan replaced the current system like Cain's does then I would consider it an option, but not until then.

I also don't buy the meme that the poor can't afford to pay taxes.  If you make $250 a week then you can pay $25 a week.  If you want a credit then put in 25 hours of community service per year and get a credit or something but until we remove the Progressive thought process that infects our tax system we will never remove it from our political system.

235 jumbo....it's for dependents and you count yourself in that number

236  I am going to mass email this new Perry Form...It needs to get out there.

Hell.. if I can figure it out in 10 minutes (and I am not the brightest bulb as witnessed in my last 4 comments) then... everyone should like it.

I just want the economy to come back so I can get a real job and not the barely making it job I have now during the Obama depression.
Perry just checks all the boxes for me. 
Successful Governor, Prolife, can balance a budget, conservative, good hair, would REPEAL obamacare.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp with personal items in her luggage at October 25, 2011 12:53 PM (qjUnn)

Me too, JJS.

237 Okay, since you claim to all smart and such, walk me through your carefully considered conclusion that capping government spending at 18% is so much more realistic than say 10%.

Okay, it works like this:

There are things the government has just taken over (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) that it never had any business being in.  Once it took over, however, the private groups that had been meeting that need stopped, or scaled way back (as someone who runs a benevolence pantry for my church, let me say- if food stamps went away tomorrow, there is no way private entities could absorb that need).  So, such things need to be phased out.

Now, when you're selling a plan that is going to reduce spending, it needs to be as un-scary as possible.  If you cap at 18% of GDP, you can say, "This is effectively not a cap, because it's what we've historically spent anyway."  Then you start phasing out those things the Fed shouldn't be doing anyway.  Say you start with the EPA and Dept Ed, just for starters.  Then (I haven't run the numbers, so I'm making these up from here on out) we actually spend 16% for a couple of years.  Now you "re-cap" down to 16, or even 15%.  You say, "see, we don't need more than that, and this way we prevent problems with our deficit like we had from 2004 (as a sop to independents) onward."

If, however, you start at a 10% cap, you scare off the independents- they cannot conceive of how you could cut the federal government in half and still keep "basic necessities" working.  They're wrong.  You and I both know it.  But they outnumber us.

This also allows squishy Republicans to use the same talking points to their constituents to assuage their fears.

I will completely agree that 10% is "better" in a theoretical/philosophical sense than 18%, but 18% is a good start, and shouldn't be that hard (relatively speaking) to sell.

238 This also allows squishy Republicans to use the same talking points to their constituents to assuage their fears.

I find it's better to just scream "Perry Scheme" and say my appointents want to sodomize grandma.

239 @246 You just wrote a bunch of words exhibiting a death-grip on the obvious. You want to cut slow. I want to cut fast. I am inclined to believe such a bold plan would attract more independents than would be lost based on the November, 2010 electoral results, and yet you think such a bold plan would scare them off. So, explain again how my comments exhibit "stupidity" of reveal a "strawman," but yours' somehow don't.

240

On hot air they contrast the Perry plan vs. Gingrich plan.

 

The Gingrich plan is much better/fair for the country.  Go Newt!

241

@246, @248 You want to cut slow. I want to cut fast.

How would it fit in that holding to 10% GDP would probably serve, through the lower taxes to fund it, etc., to help the economy grow faster, thereby guaranteeing that 10% GDP spending would eventually surpass spending if held at 18% throughout?

Probably wouldn't sell, however, as it's too sophisticated for the average American voter.

242

I like the idea of a consumption tax because I like the idea of everybody paying "their fair share," not just the "rich."  The poor ought to pay their fair share too.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 25, 2011 12:48 PM (+inic)

Under normal circumstances (meaning when economic times were good) I would agree.  However, with the reality of the existing economic conditions, expecting low income folks to incur addtional financial burden is not really fiscally or morally the thing to do.  Afterall, isn't that what motivated Cain to change his plan?

243

@251 expecting low income folks to incur addtional financial burden is not really fiscally or morally the thing to do.

Exactly wrong.  There's nothing "immoral" about asking low income folks to pull their own weight.  Why does having a low income get them a "get out of doing their part" card?  Times are tough for the middle class, too, yet we have to pull our weight.

Sorry, but I do not in any way, shape, or form accept the spurious notion that the poor are more virtuous or deserving of handouts (which is what not paying tax when others do really is) than anyone else.

244 Wait... wait.  Rick Perry wants to tax girls that don't have boobies????

245 I like what I'm hearing so far. At least Perry sounds like he's read and understands his own plan (unlike a certain former pizza mogul and his). It ain't perfect, but none of them will be...ever. But it's a good start.

Looks like the Perry a lot of us were hoping was running may finally have decided to show up. I'm in. Just don't call me "heartless" again, Rick, even if it's true.

246 @251 expecting low income folks to incur addtional financial burden is not really fiscally or morally the thing to do.

How can we expect a group to understand this behemoth costs money, money that hurts, if they pay nothing? What personal incentive does a low income earner have to control the size of government? Some far off conservative promise that less government may mean a better job for them? I would rather pull *something* from everyone, as all make use of security and rights, so that all understand it costs money.

247 It just blows my mind that there are people here (rather, trolls) who want to make the conservative position be "We need to tax those lazy poor people more!!"

Yeah, run with that, that's a real winner.

A) They don't have money (did you forget they are poor?)
B) Yes, 25$ a week is a lot when you are poor. (If you don't think so, you are a jackass who's never had to make the choice between paying bills and buying food.)
C) While that little band of "Tax the Poor" pure conservatives sounds good to you it sounds like a bunch of asshole to the independents and plays right into the caricature the left has of conservatives.

I don't know why I have to say this but, every defense of the Cain plan can be boiled down to "We need to raise more taxes." When the hell did that become the conservative position?

Oh, and Cain will, by June of 2012, drop out and endorse Romney--whether Romney is in 1st or last place, whether Cain is in 1st or last place, whether Perry is in 1st or last place---Cain will--WILL--endorse Romney.

248 A) They don't have money (did you forget they are poor?)

Bullshit.  We have the fattest poor people on Earth.  They have XBoxes, Playstations, new shows, and smart phones.  Their standard of living ain't that much lower than someone who is Middle Class.

B) Yes, 25$ a week is a lot when you are poor. (If you don't think so, you are a jackass who's never had to make the choice between paying bills and buying food.)

Don't call the people who subsidize the poor by paying their share jackasses.  It's ungrateful.

C) While that little band of "Tax the Poor" pure conservatives sounds good to you it sounds like a bunch of asshole to the independents and plays right into the caricature the left has of conservatives.

Nobody should be exempted from a tax, then be able to decide where monies raised from that tax are spent.  The system we have now is bullshit.

249 If you like Perry's plan, toss him a couple of bucks today.  Even if it's just $25. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 25, 2011 12:54 PM (5H6zj)

Just zapped him $100. If he keeps on acting like the guy who can and will whip President Petulant's ass in 2012, he will be getting more from me.

250

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 25, 2011 01:36 PM (FkKjr)

I sitll believe the Battle Cry of the coming revolution will be...

"No Representation without Taxation"

251

Sorry, but I do not in any way, shape, or form accept the spurious notion that the poor are more virtuous or deserving of handouts (which is what not paying tax when others do really is) than anyone else.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 25, 2011 01:13 PM (+inic)

Didn't say they were more virtuous.  My point was the REALITY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION, which you so cleverly did not address not my point on why Cain changed his original plan.

But okay, I'll play along.  So you don't like handouts.  Okay, neither do I.  So what do you call 9-0-9 and the opportunity whatever zones?  You state that you like Cain's plans better, but by your logic, he's giving handouts to the 9-0-9ers.  And also the loser zones, which gives massive subsidization to the most fucked up blue states and their Democrat overseers.  Why should I or anyone else subsidize some stupid assholes in Michigan (or California or New York or Illinois) who keep electing/reelecting the anti-capitalist, soul sucking douchenozzles aka Democrats who have created the stinkholes they live in?  Why should I subsidize the Democrat party?  Which is what I'd be doing under Cain's plan.

So, please, explain why the people in blue states are more deserving of handouts (which is what not paying tax when others do really is) than anyone else.

252

The Gingrich plan is much better/fair for the country.  Go Newt!

Posted by: rjs3455 at October 25, 2011 01:07 PM (xF2yI)

Gingrich retains the EITC - strike one

Gingrich offers dependent deductions up to 16 years, vs Perry offering $12,500 per person regardless of age (think parent or out of work adult child) - strike two

Gingrich does not include deduction for state and local taxes - strike three

253 200 Why do the Perry jockers have to be so personally insulting with anyone who disagrees with them?
Starting to remind me a lot of Obama and Ron Paul fan boys.
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at October 25, 2011 12:30 PM (tazG1)

The Palinistas, and their paranoid destroy-all-potential-threats mindset, seem to have shifted over to Ricardo Peré.

Ironic.

254

For good measure, the Gingrich plan once again:

http://tinyurl.com/3kh27bj

I call for a Lincoln - Douglas style debate between Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich!  I think it would be a great way to find out about not only those two candidates' respective plans, but their philosophy regarding federal fiscal policy.

We'd also know for sure just how much each one knows of what he talks about.

A real win-win situation for the GOP.

C'mon Newt, you asked Herman and he accepted.  Ask Rick!

255 Gingrich offers dependent deductions up to 16 years, vs Perry offering $12,500 per person regardless of age (think parent or out of work adult child) - strike two

Mommy, mommy, there's a hater picking on me.

<sup>(At least I can still collect Social Security, right?)

_{(oh and I need my diapie changed)}</sup>

256

Why should I or anyone else subsidize some stupid assholes in Michigan (or California or New York or Illinois) who keep electing/reelecting the anti-capitalist, soul sucking douchenozzles aka Democrats who have created the stinkholes they live in? Why should I subsidize the Democrat party? Which is what I'd be doing under Cain's plan.

As you said earlier, its the moral thing to do.  So which is it? 

257 Most of the Palin fans who got their hearts ripped out by St Sarah the Spineless went for Cain on this blog.

258

So, please, explain why the people in blue states are more deserving of handouts (which is what not paying tax when others do really is) than anyone else.

Posted by: The Ghost of Kim Novak Perrywinkle 2012 at October 25, 2011 01:41 PM (8DdAv)

Speaking for myself?  Caine Jumped the Shark with 9-0-9.... and lost any credibility with me.

Perrys plan is close, but still needs some things done to get the Government out of picking winners and losers... because of 'lifestyle'... or economic level.

259 #221 - this.  Cain got beaten up pretty good at the last debate over defending hte 999 plan.  The flat tax plan is more appealing so Perry should be able to defend it easier than Cain but we'll see - if he stumbles or confuses people defending it his numbers won't go up

260 I'd rather stop the pay outs to "the poor" before I worry about the pay in from them.

261

B) Yes, 25$ a week is a lot when you are poor. (If you don't think so, you are a jackass who's never had to make the choice between paying bills and buying food.)

I make thats choice now, Jackass, and I still have to pay my 15%.  Which goes to people who are only slightly poorer them me.  Please explane to me why I am the Jackass?

262

I like Cain, and I like Perry. 

I'm concerned about Cain's plan...sales tax+income tax+VAT.(I don't care if they're in proper order)  Without something strong to restrain a Dem Congress, I'd hate to see it in place.

With Perry's flat tax, the best arguement against it seems to be a reduction in charitable giving.  Taxes don't affect my charity...$4.00+ diesel does. 

263

I would gladly pay a flat tax (even if it might be a bit more than I would pay under the current system) if it meant I didn't have to meticulously keep track of expenses, save every receipt, or spend hours and money on a tax accountant.

Which makes me wonder how accountants feel about the whole flat tax idea.

264 Posted by: Jimmuy at October 25, 2011 01:31 PM (hROVJ)

In summary, we're fucked, because 'the poor' and their plight will always take precedence over fixing the system that WILL collapse.

But then we can all be 'poor' together! Sounds great!

265 This really does show up the difference between the two serious contenders. Mitt is now forced to agree with Perry, at least in principle, which would be a victory for Perry, or disagree with him, which would be ... a victory for Perry.

266 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

267 OT

Is is me, or does having a security detail comprised of hawt female bodyguards really bring into question that Hillary/Huma relationship thing?

Found at SayUncle

Hillary's Angels

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at October 25, 2011 11:58 AM (G+B5p)

===

Meh. Only one of them is worth a poke.

268 Posted by: Dave at October 25, 2011 12:21 PM (Xm1aB)

You amongst all my disciples have been the most faithful.

By helping to ensure a Democratic win with your unwavering backing of Mitt "my Own Planet Filled With 14 Year Olds After Death" Romney, you will have helped  prevent all the rapes, rape-rapes, reach-arounds, donkey-punches, rusty trombones, San Diego Thank You's that these puppy eating conservatives would have visited upon the unwashed flocks of Teh Won.

269 I just cant stop reading this.  Its so cool, so full of information that I just didnt know.  Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it.  Youre a great blogger.  Please keep it up.  I cant wait to read whats next.

270 Thanks for sharing, please keep an update about this info. love to read it more. i like this site too much.

271 I was very happy to search out this web-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this excellent read!! I definitely enjoying each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

272 @189, Then get out your checkbook and sign a buck over to Ron Paul. http://tinyurl.com/3qfj99u But I'm willing to bet that buck, that you don't have the fortitude to address your cognitive dissonance over supporting Ron Paul and going status quo.

273
This web site is my breathing in, really fantastic pattern and perfect subject matter.

274 I love what you guys are frequently up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the terrific works guys IÂ’ve added you guys to my blogroll.

275 This info is a terrific read. Thanks for the info.I am looking forward for more updates. ipad 3 converter  hulu converter  convert mts files  blu-ray to ipad 3
DVD to ipad 3