October 24, 2011
— Gabriel Malor Gov. Perry counters 9-9-9 with his own numbers in a preview of tomorrow's rollout at the WSJ: 20-20.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.
He also wants to cut the corporate rate tax to 20%. And he's got what Cain's plan lacked: awareness that taxes are only half the problem:
All of these tax cuts will be meaningless if we do not control federal spending. Last year the government spent $1.3 trillion more than it collected, and total federal debt now approaches $15 trillion. By the end of 2011, the Office of Management and Budget expects the gross amount of federal debt to exceed the size of America's entire economy for the first time in over 65 years.
Entitlement reform is on the menu.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
04:52 PM
| Comments (242)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: rabidfox at October 24, 2011 04:55 PM (lzHhZ)
Gotta start somewhere. If you kill Leviathan (instead of starving it slowly), then you cut loose too many people too quickly.
Killing Leviathan might still be the right answer, but that's a lot of change you're talking about all at once.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at October 24, 2011 04:57 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: blaster at October 24, 2011 04:58 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Terry at October 24, 2011 04:58 PM (Vui52)
Posted by: The Robot Devil at October 24, 2011 04:58 PM (afrI6)
Posted by: willow-generic republican at October 24, 2011 04:59 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 04:59 PM (niZvt)
Everyone always forget how awesome I am. If it wasn't for me, Mitt would be polling at Bachman numbers. RESPECT THE HAIR!
Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at October 24, 2011 05:01 PM (afrI6)
Posted by: Bob Saget at October 24, 2011 05:01 PM (dBvlk)
Gabe, at the very least you have to admit that Cain enlarged the overton window to where the discussion isn't just about tinkering with the tax code, but it's getting into a real examination about what taxes are for, how the means they are collected affect our liberty and prosperity, and what is the correct level of taxation we should be working with.
I am a believer in the Fair Tax, but will not disparage Perry's Flat Tax scheme considering the aweful mess we have to contend with now.
Posted by: Minuteman at October 24, 2011 05:01 PM (CGxxU)
Ask 10 tax attorneys for their opinion on a subchapter and you'll get 17 responses. All of which are arguably correct.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 24, 2011 05:01 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 05:02 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: blaster at October 24, 2011 05:02 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:03 PM (xOy1A)
Posted by: Bob The Cimmerian at October 24, 2011 05:03 PM (40Ex+)
Posted by: Jack Bauer's Dad at October 24, 2011 05:03 PM (qjYjE)
he needs to talk about targeting specific agencies for outright elimination, and the need for zero-based budgeting.
Yep. He can start with Dept of Ed and EPA.
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:04 PM (Z71Vg)
Posted by: The Continental Congress at October 24, 2011 05:04 PM (B0LGd)
Posted by: Ricardo Peré at October 24, 2011 05:04 PM (d3TgT)
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:05 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at October 24, 2011 05:05 PM (2DZkg)
Yeah, but that won't last. Psychologically, it'll work fine. There'll be the taxes for most middle class taxpayers (20%) and then the parallel system that the cronies and the Buffetts of the world take advantage of.
Yeah, I think the standard deduction is too high.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 24, 2011 05:05 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: CoolCzech
..............
That doesn't work. Sales taxes are avoided with black markets. Tax revenues would drop precipitously and black market sales would skyrocket.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 05:06 PM (UTq/I)
I'd prefer a a pure consumption tax, with no federal income tax at all.
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 08:59 PM (niZvt)
That would be nice. But the federal income tax will not go away without a repeal of the 16th amendment. Even if you were to get a Congress and President to come along and set it to zero, another Congress and President will eventually come along and raise it up again so long as the amendment is part of the constitution.
Posted by: buzzion at October 24, 2011 05:06 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 05:06 PM (z6jMn)
Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 08:56 PM (fyOgS)
devil, details...
Does this also get rid of the payroll tax? If so? its a win... if not, loser.
Also this will have people gaming the two systems against each other... which helps the ultra rich, and poor, but will slam the middle class.
If'n its gonna change... its got to change... otherwise it just means there will be MORE CPAs because you have to figure your taxes TWICE.
Posted by: Romeo13 at October 24, 2011 05:07 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 05:08 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: buzzion at October 24, 2011 05:08 PM (GULKT)
Which is why I choose to buy my milk and bread from the shady guy with the unmarked van in the Walmart parking lot...
Posted by: chemjeff at October 24, 2011 05:08 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 09:06 PM (UTq/I)
In todays economy? I don't see it...
Unless the black marketers are suddenly taking Visa and Master Card.... which makes hiding the money kinda difficult...
Posted by: Romeo13 at October 24, 2011 05:08 PM (NtXW4)
Yeah, adding another tax into the mix just gives future politicians another way to stealthily increase taxes. They'd start with the corporate rate, then add a new tax bracket, then deductions... then we'd end up with what we have now, only with a VAT on top of it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 24, 2011 05:08 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:09 PM (Z71Vg)
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:09 PM (4CSeG)
Please rethink that part, Perry.
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:09 PM (LD21B)
My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms
I don't have the numbers and would gladly be corrected but as I understand it, any farm property in Ohio valued over $500,000 would be subject to a one time 50% tax upon the death of the owner.
Posted by: ErikW at October 24, 2011 05:10 PM (uaJpv)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 09:08 PM (niZvt)
Magnitude.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 24, 2011 05:10 PM (T0NGe)
Why...?
Posted by: AmishDude at October 24, 2011 09:09 PM (T0NGe)
Because it raises the effective Rates the Government takes, per job, to almost 35%... with the employee and employer portion.
Posted by: Romeo13 at October 24, 2011 05:10 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:11 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 05:11 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: kansas at October 24, 2011 05:11 PM (nNgbi)
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 09:09 PM (Z71Vg)
Its called a MOAT... Hello...... been done...
Posted by: Medieval Mason at October 24, 2011 05:11 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 05:12 PM (z6jMn)
No consumption tax or sales tax. It's too easy to raise taxes. That's all we have in Washington and while I like it (because you can cut back on your tax bill when you have to) they are always raising it by a penny per dollar as they say when they are selling it.
So far it has been raised from 2% to 9.8%
Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 05:12 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: chemjeff at October 24, 2011 05:12 PM (s7mIC)
Please rethink that part, Perry.
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 09:09 PM (LD21B)
Don't some already have a choice though? Depending on the circumstances I can just file using a 1040EZ form and not go through a bunch of individual deductions, or go with the standard 1040 form.
Posted by: buzzion at October 24, 2011 05:12 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:12 PM (xOy1A)
In other words, those that pay no taxes now can choose to continue to pay no taxes?
Exactly. Those who aren't currently paying taxes or are net beneficiaries can continue to do so, while those who do pay taxes can choose the method that reduces what they owe.
This will help reduce the deficit by decreasing overall Federal revenue.
Wait...
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 24, 2011 05:13 PM (oBrVT)
Please rethink that part, Perry.
I don't think it would be that big a deal- we already have to make that decision in choosing between the standard deduction or itemized deductions.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 24, 2011 05:13 PM (SY2Kh)
No - they have a tax rate, but they get refundable tax credits etc. that nullifies their tax bill. Take away the tax credits and they get the privilege of actually paying taxes.
Posted by: chemjeff at October 24, 2011 05:13 PM (s7mIC)
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
A choice? So, do all the old income tax laws remain in place? The only way someone who itemizes their income reaches their "current income tax rate" is by - itemizing! - you effin idiot!
If that is the case, then all you have done is added another level of complexity to the tax system - requiring many households to calculate their taxes twice! - under the new regime and the old!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 05:13 PM (UTq/I)
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 09:09 PM (Z71Vg)
Alligators and piraniahs.
Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 05:13 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 24, 2011 05:13 PM (d3TgT)
Bullshit, not with all those exemptions still in place and limits based upon the amount made. Dammit Perry, if I can pick the lies out of your press release during a commercial, want to you think your opponents will do. Dumbasses, all of them.
Posted by: dogfish at October 24, 2011 05:14 PM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 09:12 PM (z6jMn)
But it also gets rid of most deductions... so it would be closer to the effective rate.
Because the whole idea here is to simplify the system, isn't it?
Posted by: Medieval Mason at October 24, 2011 05:14 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 05:14 PM (UTq/I)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at October 24, 2011 05:15 PM (mGnwL)
Don't some already have a choice though? Depending on the circumstances I can just file using a 1040EZ form and not go through a bunch of individual deductions, or go with the standard 1040 form.
Posted by: buzzion at October 24, 2011 09:12 PM (GULKT)
Yes, so shouldn't a selling point for any plan of his be to make it simpler?
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:15 PM (LD21B)
Sounds good. I'll be interested to see some of the details.
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:15 PM (UvdzB)
Give the IRS people time to find new jobs in cattle butchering or sheep raping or whatever the hell those maggots can be retrained for.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:15 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 05:16 PM (niZvt)
w all Perry has to do is become a competitive candidate again.
give Herman Cain another week, that'll happen on its own.
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:16 PM (UvdzB)
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (xOy1A)
Posted by: The Greys at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (NRygI)
Posted by: God You Know at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (oibxU)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 24, 2011 09:13 PM (SY2Kh)
Yea, then add Perry's option on top of all that. I don't know, seems to me that he's going about this the wrong way.
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (9AyMq)
Indeed. Tax reform won't be a sweeping one time fix. It'll take time to convert to a new system
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:17 PM (UvdzB)
He's been out. He's got the money to stay in the game for a while, but it's hard to see how he catches fire again. At this point he's Michelle Bachmann with $17 million (now there's a frightening thought).
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (d3TgT)
53 Well I can see some big ticket items like cars being sold under the table in order to avoid the taxes.
That's already done. You sell a used car for $1500, but you officially sell it for $800 or something so you only have to pay taxes on that 800 and nothing on the extra 700.
You know besides Louisiana where you can no longer pay in cash.
Posted by: buzzion at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: dogfish at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (N2yhW)
Don't some already have a choice though? Depending on the circumstances I can just file using a 1040EZ form and not go through a bunch of individual deductions, or go with the standard 1040 form.
Posted by: buzzion at October 24, 2011 09:12 PM (GULKT)
Yes, it sounds a bit like having the option of filling out the EZ form at all income levels.
This will help reduce the deficit by decreasing overall Federal revenue.
Wait...
Compliance costs. H&R Block and related companies will shrivel because ordinary taxpayers would just do the 20%. You'd stop wasting time doing tax forms or paying for Turbo Tax.
And, like I said, the non-20% tax would quickly become pilloried as the plaything of the rich.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 09:16 PM (niZvt)
I was thinking that too, some piddling tax rate to help stave off the inevitable gnashing of teeth on behalf of the poor.
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (niZvt)
-side note- I do understand the need to balance the caution on policy specifics the left can distort and propagandize. See Cain/Paul Ryan treatment
Posted by: Shiggz at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: Hindsight at October 24, 2011 09:16 PM (+XVQe)
Hey now..... at least I aint BoonesFarm...
Posted by: MD 20-20 at October 24, 2011 05:18 PM (NtXW4)
Maybe there are parts of it I don't get, but having parallel tax systems that you can switch to when it's to your advantage seems like a recipe for... I'm not sure. But it's not good.
This is an awful idea.
Posted by: mr.frakypants at October 24, 2011 05:19 PM (pffBj)
U read the article and it looks like he is saying you can keep your old tax rate but not your old deductions. So if a poor guy is paying 10% he will actually be paying 10% - the deductions listed.
So it isn't two tax codes, it just gives a break to the poor.
Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 05:19 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:20 PM (LD21B)
Their car get 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way they like it!
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:20 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 09:17 PM (UvdzB)
Maybe, but during Reagan's time, it was greatly simplified in a single year; not like this bullshit.
Posted by: dogfish at October 24, 2011 05:20 PM (N2yhW)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 24, 2011 05:20 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 05:20 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: The Greys at October 24, 2011 05:20 PM (NRygI)
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:21 PM (Z71Vg)
Posted by: God You Know at October 24, 2011 05:22 PM (oibxU)
Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 05:22 PM (fyOgS)
An extra half hour away from the TV while figuring out if the 1040 is more or less than 20% is terrifying.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:22 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 24, 2011 09:13 PM (d3TgT)
That's a long fucking reach, right there.
Posted by: ErikW at October 24, 2011 05:22 PM (uaJpv)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at October 24, 2011 05:22 PM (9AyMq)
OT:
Obama is currently roaming the streets of LA, screwing up traffic while he flits from fundraiser to fundraiser. Heard on the news that he and his entourage had an "impromptu" stop at Roscoes Chicken and Waffles to pick up some wings.
No joke. Actually happened. Trying up rush hour traffic for a wing stop.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 24, 2011 05:22 PM (oBrVT)
Maybe, but during Reagan's time, it was greatly simplified in a single year; not like this bullshit.
Posted by: dogfish at October 24, 2011 09:20 PM (N2yhW)
Give me a break. Reagan's "greatly simplified" tax code wasn't the paradigm shift like this proposal is. He's proposing a major new tax system.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 24, 2011 05:23 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Smartass at October 24, 2011 05:23 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 09:17 PM (xOy1A)
Unfortunately, too many people like the deductions game, they actually think they're getting free money trying to max out the refund. Sad but true.
I'm glad Perry out something out there he can point to, but really glad he made the point that the problem is spending, the tax code shit is just window dressing. Now I'd like to hear some actual Departments that will wither under a Perry administration, though I doubt he'll actually name one he'd axe, for more or less the same reason as above.
Posted by: mugiwara at October 24, 2011 05:23 PM (KI/Ch)
So, it's the tax rate that gets carried over then, and just the deductions he lists.
Hmmm.
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:23 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: Ramones at October 24, 2011 05:24 PM (aD5Kx)
What, you mean we're NOT??!!
Posted by: Turbo Tax Timmy at October 24, 2011 05:24 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 05:25 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:26 PM (Z71Vg)
Posted by: Karl Rove at October 24, 2011 05:26 PM (REXkU)
An extra half hour away from the TV while figuring out if the 1040 is more or less than 20% is terrifying.
Yea, just what America has been dreaming of, an alternative maximum tax. In all fairness though, at 20% flat with mortgage and taxes deductions, I probably would come out several K in the black.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 24, 2011 05:26 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (z6jMn)
I mean, really. What's the Federal government for if not for celebrating our Western heritage?
Posted by: Harry "Charisma" Reid at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (LD21B)
Have my tax guy do a quick 1040 and get the total. Then if it's more than 20% say "Fuck it, send the post card".
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Randy M at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (pSAOu)
I get the snark, but if you have to explain it, its going to be hard to campaign on.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (xOy1A)
during Reagan's time, it was greatly simplified in a single year
Posted by: dogfish
Personal taxes maybe. But business taxes got more complicated because of changes made to drive businesses investment. ACRS, MACRS and what have you.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 24, 2011 05:27 PM (oBrVT)
First thing......kick all and I do mean ALL of the various fed agency CZARS to the curb. Next, slash the budgets by about two thirds Dept. Education, Dept of AG, Kill the NEA, HUD, Homeland Security! Slash the EPA..(really want to just close that bitch down fer-shizzle) and any other Bloated Fed programs....to the BONE and I do mean THE BONE!! Then and only then will we as a nation be setting a better course. Perry sounds like he is warming up to real answers with this tax plan ...but it MUST go farther than that to seriously address the BONE OF DOOM in the room...
jus sayin
Posted by: Richard at October 24, 2011 05:28 PM (qWSxd)
So when Perry says you can keep your old tax rate, is that like Obama saying you can keep your old health insurance?
It's essentially letting the less well off keep the old tax rate as it is.
I don't get the complaints here. Do any of you honestly think one of the Republicans is going to run on a proposal to raise taxes on the 47% who don't pay any federal income taxes? Are you drunk?
Yeah, that'll be a fucking winner. " I will raise your taxes and my opponent Obama won't". Use that all the way to the White House.
I don't understand how people still don't get that what the candidate says and what he'll do in office are two different things. Honestly isn't a great policy in politics.
He saw what happened to Cain's plan and added an out for the less well off so the media can't spend all day saying, "you'll cut taxes on the rich but raise them for the poor".
It has no bearing on what he will actually do in office. It's simply something he has to do politically.
This is a decent idea. It lowers taxes for the people who create wealth and allows the people who don't to keep their low to non existent rates, but more importantly it's about cutting spending. It doesn't matter if the rate is 90 percent or 9 percent if the government keeps spending at the current clip. God doesn't have enough money to fund our spending.
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:28 PM (UvdzB)
A multi-tiered flat tax is the only one that makes sense to me and would be acceptable to a majority of the voting public.
Like this: (my numbers are bogus - they would depend on reaching revenues equal to the current revenues - this is just an example - and numbers for filing jointly might be different)
Income Tax Rate
-------- ----------
0-25k 3%
25k-40k 8%
40k-55k 11%
55k-120k 13%
>120k 18%
No exemptions - no deductions - no credits for kids, etc...
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 05:29 PM (UTq/I)
Perry's on a comeback.
I wish.
You know.. if I could give him some advice it would be this.
1. Stop attacking Romney. Act like you are running against Obama (you are). In fact, don't attack anybody. You are your own man, you don't need to do that.
2. Stop talking about the "great state of Texas". We all get it. Texas is the fucking bomb.
3. Be prepared.
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:29 PM (Z71Vg)
Just looking for information because I'm confused.
Under 9-9-9 better half and I would pay 9% for our business tax (we own a "small business") 9% for our personal income tax and 9% consumption = 27% total
Under Perry's Plan better half and I would pay 20% for our business tax (again, we own a "small business") and 20% personal income tax = 40%
Posted by: Heartless Nora, please be patient with me at October 24, 2011 05:29 PM (VxqUc)
I flip flop around on this. Yeah, it cushions the blow in high tax states, which just encourages the leeches, but again, it's money the citizens never gets his hands on so why should he pay taxes on it?
Posted by: toby928© at October 24, 2011 05:30 PM (GTbGH)
raise taxes on the 47% who don't pay any federal income taxes? Are you drunk?
Posted by: Ben
AKA Obama voters. Are they really going to vote for a Republican anyway?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 24, 2011 05:30 PM (oBrVT)
It is going to be hard for anyone not promising to give away free shit to win this election.
More than half the country talks like Hank Williams Jr but really thinks like Peggy Joseph.
Perry will have to prove this will save the average family dough.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:31 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: HeartlessBlackOrchid at October 24, 2011 05:31 PM (SB0V2)
18 percent. Cutting spending to 18 percent. That should be the main takeaway. even if we can get close to that, it would be huge
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:31 PM (UvdzB)
Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 05:31 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka says Mitt rhymes with sh*t at October 24, 2011 05:32 PM (yPP4h)
Posted by: In Exile at October 24, 2011 05:32 PM (zi2k+)
Posted by: Hill Country Texan at October 24, 2011 05:32 PM (vjXgp)
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:32 PM (Z71Vg)
Real problem with this plan? it will never get through Washington.
Washington is built on being able to chose Winners, and losers. Its all about special exemptions, and Campaign Funds.... take that away and Lobbyists will have no real job... and Congressmen will not have anywhere near their current power to deliver.
DOA.... Plan is Dead on Arrival.
Posted by: Romeo13 at October 24, 2011 05:33 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: God You Know at October 24, 2011 05:33 PM (oibxU)
Posted by: boone at October 24, 2011 05:33 PM (Qrpo1)
A flat tax (and tiered flat rates) does this quite well, because it doesn't discriminate.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 24, 2011 05:33 PM (+XVQe)
AKA Obama voters. Are they really going to vote for a Republican anyway?
No way. I know a ton of conservatives and republicans who fall into that category
It's not so clear cut.
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:33 PM (UvdzB)
Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 09:31 PM (fyOgS)
Sorry, but you will NEVER get Politicians to cut spending, UNLESS you starve them of tax funds...
Posted by: Romeo13 at October 24, 2011 05:34 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 05:34 PM (z6jMn)
Cain is proving himself to be a loose cannon that flip-flops more than Mittens.
Yep. Watch the poll numbers start dropping.
Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at October 24, 2011 05:34 PM (Z71Vg)
That's why you make the personal deduction big enough to start and then tell them congratulations you employer also will be able to keep you employed. Flatten, simplify, its the only way to be sure.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:34 PM (xOy1A)
Did you see hermsn cain's new ad. It's hilarious. roflamo
It had to be fake. There is no way that is real.
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:35 PM (UvdzB)
No way! Fuck all these ideas and proposals that only partially reform the system! If they'd just enact [my pet tax fantasy that only appeals to serious FisCons, and not even all of them], then we'd be cooking with gas!
/s
Seriously, folks - what seems like a good idea, what makes sense to a principled liberty-first conservative, well, these things scare the absolute hell out of the public, and once the moron 52%ers start paying real attention, we get 4 more years of Barry...unless you can get the tip in, just a little bit, so they can all see that the sky isn't falling. Remember - the people who ultimately elect the president don't just have 0 economic knowledge - it's a negative number, when you consider how many things they believe that just aren't so. Radical change is fun to shout about on the internet, but if the average indy voter wanted radical change, they'd probably be engaged somewhere prior to the week before election day.
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at October 24, 2011 05:36 PM (D+phB)
It was functionally a significant improvement. A "flat tax" that isn't flat isn't a paradigm shift.
Posted by: dogfish at October 24, 2011 05:37 PM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Perry Tacs Plan at October 24, 2011 05:37 PM (4CSeG)
"Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 09:34 PM (z6jMn) "
Thanks! I need this stuff explained to me like I am 9! It's really confusing at times.
Appreciate your help, you moron!
Posted by: Heartless Nora, please be patient with me at October 24, 2011 05:37 PM (VxqUc)
Posted by: poljunkie at October 24, 2011 05:38 PM (XuiJf)
Posted by: Andy
.............
Businesses do NOT pay 35%. That is the top RATE. No one pays that.
They end up paying much much less when they get all the deductions that are in place in the current law. If you get rid of all the deductions and reduce the rate to 20%, it would be a hard question whether you would reduce a business's tax liability at all.
Remember - GE paid $0 - ZERO DOLLARS - last year by taking advantage of all the deductions. That is Zero Percent.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 05:38 PM (UTq/I)
That's why you make the personal deduction big enough to start and then tell them congratulations you employer also will be able to keep you employed. Flatten, simplify, its the only way to be sure.
You can't run on anything having to do with raising taxes on the 47 percent. I'm sorry.
As a matter of principle, I am right there with you. We should all be kicking into the system. However, as a matter of politics, in an economy like this, you cannot run on raising taxes on the "middle and working classes".
You simply can't do it. It's an unforced error that works right into Obama's playbook.
You have to bite you toungue and run on something like this. It's the best of both worlds. The job creators and investors get to keep more of their money which they undoubtedly will spend and invest wisely and the "less well off" will get to keep the status quo. But the kicked is that with the initial decrease in gov't income, spending will have to be reduced.
It's a decent plan. Will it pass? Probably not, but neither will 9-9-9 or Mitt Romney's 58 page plann.
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:38 PM (UvdzB)
Posted by: The Greys at October 24, 2011 05:39 PM (NRygI)
127
Why attack anyone opposing the "o". We should ALL be attacking the "o" 24/7 till 2012. Debating issues...good. In-fighting...not good. The issue is how best to remove the SCFOMF in the most decisive way possible (remember..if it ain't close, they can't cheat!). So we go for the best bet after a series of debates that give us the best "Look" at the man/woman who we want to be our collective rep...then that's our way of doing it ....right?
Posted by: Richard at October 24, 2011 05:39 PM (qWSxd)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at October 24, 2011 05:39 PM (9AyMq)
Businesses do NOT pay 35%. That is the top RATE. No one pays that
If you're an S-Corporation, you most definately pay above 35%, especially if your profit and wages are above 200k.
I think the top rate is 36.2%
Posted by: Ben at October 24, 2011 05:40 PM (UvdzB)
Posted by: Randy M at October 24, 2011 09:27 PM (pSAOu)
Depends, really. I get a rather substantial deduction for state sales tax here in TN (the rate is 9.25% in most places). OTOH, I don't get to deduct my state income tax because there isn't one!
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at October 24, 2011 05:40 PM (D+phB)
An extra half hour away from the TV while figuring out if the 1040 is more or less than 20% is terrifying.
Yea, just what America has been dreaming of, an alternative maximum tax. In all fairness though, at 20% flat with mortgage and taxes deductions, I probably would come out several K in the black.
Ok, I just did the math. I came out 3K in the red. And my combined tax bracket is up there. F* you Perry and your optional tax increase on the middle class. If it pounds me in the arse...(checks) it is pretty much a loser until you hit about 200K a year. Hey Perry, guess what you'll have a hard time selling? A tax cut that effects ONLY those making 200k a year or more.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 24, 2011 05:40 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: The Magical Christmas Horse ePub at October 24, 2011 05:41 PM (kplp3)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 24, 2011 09:30 PM (oBrVT)
The racist ones will.
Posted by: MFM at October 24, 2011 05:42 PM (D+phB)
I bet that is why he said we could choose to do it the old way if we wanted.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:43 PM (4CSeG)
Ben, re-read it. A 30K deduction for married couples would cover that, besides I would rather run on the saving taxes on the 53%.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:43 PM (xOy1A)
The Christmas season starts earlier and earlier every year.
Posted by: mugiwara at October 24, 2011 05:43 PM (KI/Ch)
Posted by: Faisal "The Reprisal" Bangyoudeep at October 24, 2011 05:43 PM (ucERL)
I think the top rate is 36.2%
Posted by: Ben............
That's bullshit, Ben. ALL income in an S-Corp flows through to the owner. What you are saying is all the saps that own S-Corps have absolutely ZERO deductions?
You, apparently, do not personally know any business owners.. I do. Creative tax accounting allows them to write off almost every cent they spend... meals.. purchases.. cars.. trips.. etc., etc.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 05:43 PM (UTq/I)
What if the rate is 10-15%? Does that offset your deductions?
Posted by: KG at October 24, 2011 05:44 PM (LD21B)
Give the IRS people time to find new jobs in cattle butchering or sheep raping or whatever the hell those maggots can be retrained for.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 09:15 PM (4CSeG)
Screw those maggots. Why in the hell should we worry, at all, about some bureaucrat's job? We don't worry about our troops when there's a downsize of the military and folks are sent out in a RIF left and right, regardless of the state of the economy.
I believe we should be downsizing the federal government drastically. And like the so-called "Peace Dividend" that politicians like to call the savings from a smaller force, we can declare it to be a "Liberty Dividend", because we will be freer to live our own lives instead of spending our money to those who enslave us with thousands of regulations.
Posted by: Minuteman at October 24, 2011 05:44 PM (CGxxU)
My preference too. No deductions; everyone in a given income bracket pays __%.
Perry's flat-but-not-really tax that doesn't seem to actually change much of anything.... meh.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 24, 2011 05:44 PM (d3TgT)
Under Perry's Plan better half and I would pay 20% for our business tax (again, we own a "small business") and 20% personal income tax = 40%
Posted by: Heartless Nora, please be patient with me at October 24, 2011 09:29 PM (VxqUc)
Only if you own a corporation, is your small business is sub s or limited liability you would only be taxed once.
Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 05:46 PM (MtwBb)
You, apparently, do not personally know any business owners.. I do. Creative tax accounting allows them to write off almost every cent they spend... meals.. purchases.. cars.. trips.. etc., etc.
Yeah. Lots of people cheat on their taxes.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:46 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: nightowl at October 24, 2011 05:47 PM (AVxPV)
A family of four in California doesn't eat unless it makes 50,000 a year somehow.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:47 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 05:48 PM (z6jMn)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 24, 2011 09:44 PM (d3TgT)
The few deductions he keeps helps the poor and middle class. You have to do that or it's a big tax break for the rich and would never sell.
Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 05:48 PM (MtwBb)
Look at Perry's political history. He has ALWAYS been a slow starter then finishes like a champion. The problem with debates is that there are not very representative of a person's ability to govern. The debates hurt Perry because they made people wonder how smart he is.
If this tax plan looks, smart, really really smart, it will go a long way towards fixing that.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 24, 2011 05:50 PM (uVlA4)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 24, 2011 05:51 PM (xOy1A)
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate.
Then this isn't really true:
By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy.
If we can keep our current rates, then he is keeping all the old complexity, plus adding a new wrinkle. Complexity with extra simplicity added on top does not make for simplicity; it makes for even more complexity.
Of course, all that would be secondary for those that can pay less taxes. But, who gets to save? Just running some quick and sloppy numbers from the current tax brackets: 0-$8500 = 10%; 8500-34500 = 15%; 34500-83600 = 25%.
Before you even start with deductions, the break even point is $77,500.00. That's right, the tax on 77,500 comes to $15,500 if you are using the current method or if you just pay the 20% flat tax. Anyone making less than 77K comes out ahead with the current tax scheme. That's filing single and not taking out all the extra deductions now available. Once you add in all the extra deductions currently available, it gets even worse.
So, great tax plan for those making (considerably) more than 77K.
What a loser. I wish these guys would stop talking about new wonderful ways to tax us. STOP SPENDING is the only answer. Let's hear about how he will accomplish that.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at October 24, 2011 05:53 PM (k34Gz)
Let the people get comfortable with a flatter tax, then after more of the Gimme Generation grows up and more of the Boomers exit stage dirt, we migrate to a true Flat Tax.
Posted by: sifty at October 24, 2011 05:54 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Cherry pi at October 24, 2011 05:55 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: nightowl at October 24, 2011 05:57 PM (AVxPV)
"Posted by: robtr at October 24, 2011 09:46 PM (MtwBb) "
Thanks! We pay a crapload now so either plan sounds like improvement. Just wanted the information for the better half!
Posted by: Heartless Nora at October 24, 2011 05:58 PM (VxqUc)
Mortified, he starts to slink away. However, the man behind him taps him on the shoulder, and says, "Hey, don't worry about it. You had what's known as a Freudian slip. Happened to me just the other day. I was at breakfast with my wife, and I meant to say, 'Please pass the butter.' Instead, I said, 'You fucking bitch, you ruined my life!'"
* * *
I like the Perry tax plan.
Posted by: Haging Brain at October 24, 2011 05:58 PM (l57Cl)
..........
No.. You STFU, Andy.
The whole point is all these plans are smoke and mirrors.. Some plans delete all deductions like Cain's plan - In which case the effective and marginal rates are exactly the same, you twit.
People come on blogs like this and argue one way or another without ever defining which rate they are arguing for or against.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 06:14 PM (UTq/I)
Here's what the debates settled. McRomney felt the need to touch Perry. Perry resisted the urge to smack him. Yes, McRomney is smooth. Smooth to the point of being slimy. He's been running for 7 years. McRomney is like a kid whose parents have been prepping him for the national spelling bee. Spell arthrocentipicaliphratic and the kid nails it. What amount of income makes somebody rich? "I don't know....I want everybody in America to be rich." bleech. You know what Perry is? REAL. A real man who has experience guiding the second/third largest state. See how he didn't flip/flop or hide from the law that TEXAS approved on whether to grant instate tuition rates to KIDS WHO WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL IN TEXAS regardless of whether their parents brought them here from Mexico or New Jersey?? My parents moved here when I was about to enter high school, Did I have a choice to stay in Jamaica, Queens, NYC, NY??? Hell no.
Incidentally my kids went to school with and I taught some of those kids and they are about as Mexican as Tony Romo. They know enough Spanish to say Merry Xmas to Grandma on the phone and to order in a Mexican Restaurant. Most have been here for 10 or 12 years and would be LOST if you dropped them into Mexico. Their parents may have gone back and forth 20 times. The border is THAT porous; people routinely go home for xmas or even just to go fishing. However, they leave little kids up here because it's harder to cross with them. Sorry Ms. Crazy-eyes but them is the facts.
Posted by: moronpolitics at October 24, 2011 06:14 PM (Qrpo1)
Posted by: 1Q84 epub at October 24, 2011 06:22 PM (1mVin)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 06:23 PM (z6jMn)
So far I think everyone has been trying on candidates as an alternative to Romney but haven't really been able to get behind them. Perry just changed that for me so it will be interesting to see if he gets any traction from this.
Posted by: Voluble at October 24, 2011 06:24 PM (JKX4x)
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 24, 2011 06:26 PM (O7ksG)
Posted by: William Teach at October 24, 2011 06:31 PM (Pq9u/)
Genius, that's like... PERFECT VISION!
And a total of only 40% vs. 27% that Cain is offering... but math is hard.
Hard like the fact that everybody is paying about 30% right now regardless of the "progressive" crap you find on your pay stub. Pssst, the end consumer pays ALL taxes, most you all that get a paycheck just think (suckers) you pay on the front end.
Posted by: Romney Voter at October 24, 2011 06:36 PM (7MFxV)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 06:37 PM (z6jMn)
Posted by: Jordan at October 24, 2011 06:38 PM (XJYf4)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 24, 2011 06:39 PM (Vs+hu)
Posted by: William Teach at October 24, 2011 10:31 PM (Pq9u/)
You can't get from here (current tax law) to there (pure flat tax). There have to be intermediate steps to allow it to evolve.
Now, I like the simplicity of a flat tax, but let's face it, the low income people will feel it a lot more than those well into the six figures range--I'm not opposed to a non-punitive progressive tax system for that reason. A very simple tiered system (Poverty, Middle Class, Upper Class--pick your income amounts to correspond) with minimal deductions is realistically the best that can be hoped for.
Posted by: Conservative Crank at October 24, 2011 06:39 PM (vNpDB)
You should've taken my advice. Posted by: Andy
....
Do you mind listing what deductions there are for businesses under Cain's plan? I'll wait for your answer...
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 24, 2011 06:39 PM (UTq/I)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 06:43 PM (z6jMn)
Posted by: The Scorpio Races epub at October 24, 2011 06:43 PM (Z93nW)
Until the full details of the plan are relased tomorrow, we've got a lot of idle speculation built around a few talking points. I'm hoping for Monty to link to the article tomorrow, and to see some informed commentary on what the nuts and bolts of the plan are later in the week.
Posted by: Conservative Crank at October 24, 2011 06:47 PM (vNpDB)
Posted by: CrankyTrex at October 24, 2011 06:48 PM (08O0O)
Posted by: Barack Obama at October 24, 2011 06:51 PM (HmTkU)
Hallelujah! That's what I'm looking for from one of these non-Paul candidates.
Posted by: Y-not at October 24, 2011 06:53 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at October 24, 2011 06:54 PM (7Ahkq)
Posted by: cainiac at October 24, 2011 07:01 PM (1sxk1)
Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2011 07:06 PM (z6jMn)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 24, 2011 07:23 PM (Vs+hu)
Back in reality, adding yet another layer of calculation to the tax code is just stupid. One AMT is enough.
But since Perry probably doesn't mean it and is obviously trying to one-up Cain, Perrybots can continue to support their guy with no misgivings. He obviously has no intention of enacting the thing if by some odd chance he gets elected.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at October 24, 2011 07:27 PM (Aw0+T)
$600/yr for an accountant? where do you live and what kind of business do you have? i've got two businesses and work full time, and have spent $3k on a cpa for a single year, and that wasn't even a big-time firm, no special situations or anything either. i have done my taxes more than once, but the hours upon hours to compile all the information is an enormous pain, and the peace of mind that comes with a full-time expert managing the paperwork is almost always worth it. i still say the biggest problem with this damn country is that you can't start a serious business without a decent lawyer, payroll service, business software, and cpa, well, you can but you'll be spending most of your time shuffling paperwork instead of working your business. it's absolutely criminal what the tax code and litigious climate of blame permeates anyone trying to do things the right way. honestly, it's no wonder that small business people bend the tax code to breaking in order to hold on to anything they have. the government has no love for anything other than gargantuan businesses that line its pockets with donations and fill its polls with robotic employees that are lazy, unskilled, and know nothing of what risk it takes to start an enterprise and keep it running without guaranteed repeat business.
Posted by: oromneycare at October 24, 2011 07:33 PM (bY+Nu)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2011 07:44 PM (qvify)
So this is how I understand Perry's miserable plan:
As a small businessman who is self-employed, with Perry, I can pay 20% income tax AND 15.6% self-employment tax for a total of 35.6% on my earnings.
Under Cain's plan I could pay a 9% income tax and 9% sales tax on what I choose to consume, and ZERO self-employment tax. Hmmmmmm, I think I'll continue to go with Cain.
Posted by: doug at October 24, 2011 07:48 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: Romney at October 24, 2011 07:54 PM (twWuS)
Posted by: James at October 24, 2011 08:04 PM (GkYyh)
It seems that the organizers chose the two participants, with Gingrich being the first because it was his idea to do that style of debate. I gather Cain was the other one because the organizers had a relationship with him already.
Posted by: Y-not at October 24, 2011 08:09 PM (5H6zj)
Mallamutt,
Since you want to start looking deeper into numbers, 1/2 of self employment tax deduction doesn't mean you are getting a tax CREDIT for 1/2, it means you can deduct it from income and unless you are paying in the 100% income tax bracket (which we are not), you only save a small portion of that - according to Rick Perry it would be 20% of that, so in essence it would be 80% of the 15+ percent to add to the 20%.
Posted by: doug at October 24, 2011 08:10 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: Destined ePub at October 24, 2011 08:12 PM (MFNBL)
Posted by: doug at October 24, 2011 08:13 PM (gUGI6)
Mallamutt,
Having done this before it's pretty easy, let's just use your numbers (which means ignoring the .9325 SE calculation) and let's assume straight up 20% income tax no other deductions. If you have $100,000 and you paid $15,600 in self employment tax, then your income tax would be 20% of (100,000 - 7800) which is $18440, plus you paid 15,600 in self employment tax for a total of $34,440. Your "savings" from getting to deduct 1/2 of self employment tax equals $20,000 - $18,440 which would be $1,560 - not $7,800 as you claim. You still have to pay the $15,600 and you only save the taxable rate on the 1/2 of SE tax.
Posted by: doug at October 24, 2011 08:57 PM (gUGI6)
Mallamutt,
The 1/2 SE tax is deducted on page one of the 1040 which means you only save the taxable rate times 1/2 SE tax. The only possible way that the self-employed person pays just the employee share of self-employment taxes is if that portion of their income is taxed at 100%, which it is not.
Posted by: doug at October 24, 2011 09:01 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: NO to Perry at October 24, 2011 09:02 PM (PBeR5)
Posted by: Ed Wallis at October 25, 2011 12:35 AM (MEosb)
And 20/20 sounds way the heck better than 9-9-9 and beats the non-existent plans of the others. I'm not going to call anything as long as Romney's mess a "plan"...that's a damn bureaucratic clusterf*ck, not a plan.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 25, 2011 02:30 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: Case at October 25, 2011 03:16 AM (DYR2Q)
Posted by: Yael at October 25, 2011 03:28 AM (qZHMa)
Posted by: LTC G at October 25, 2011 03:32 AM (n2Voo)
That's not a definitive, "Yes, I believe he"--
Well, I don't have a definitive answer, because he's never seen my birth certificate.
But you've seen his.
I don't know. Have I?
You don't believe what's been released?
I don't know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
And?
That came up.
And he said?
He doesn't think it's real.
And you said?
I don't have any idea. It doesn't matter. He's the President of the United States. He's elected. It's a distractive issue."
And, let's continue the controversy this morning and distract from our newly released tax plan.
Posted by: cainiac at October 25, 2011 04:51 AM (k1rwm)
"The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions"
Why would a republican propose we continue to subsidize people living in high tax blue states? If you choose to live in NY, CA, NJ, MA etc and pay high taxes that doesn't mean you should pay lower federal taxes then me.
Posted by: Nate Ogden at October 25, 2011 05:11 AM (PD3v9)
I am right, do the math. Of course I don't have to pay income tax on 1/2 of my self-employment tax, but that doesn't mean I don't have to pay 1/2 of my self-employment tax. It means that I get back in the form of less income taxes, the marginal income tax rate times 1/2 of the self-employment tax.
The only possible way to get back 100% of that 1/2 of self-employment tax is if the marginal tax rate on that amount is 100%. As of this time it is not. Perry's plan would have that tax rate be 20% so that of my self-employment tax, I would be paying 90% of it under Perry's plan (100% of 1/2 of it, and 80% of the other half). That would mean under Perry's plan I have the priviledge of paying 20% income tax PLUS nearly 14% self employment tax, and zero sales tax.
Under the 9-9-9 plan I would pay 9% income tax and 9% sales tax on what I choose to consume.
It is very easy for me to see that if you are comparing Rick Perry to Herman Cain, that Rick Perry is ANTI- SMALL BUSINESS based on his tax plan.
Posted by: doug at October 25, 2011 07:01 AM (gUGI6)
#36 - Perry's plans (energy, tax) have had some new features but most of what he is proposing has been proposed before - cuts down on the prep time
#73 Mitt put his plan out months ago - buried in his 59 pt plan
#127 - Good advice
Good that Perry put out a plan. Problem is that he will now face exactly what Cain has faced with his 999 plan - when asked specifics about the plan it can become complicated (as all tax plans can) and actually turn people off as it isn't as good as the simple headline sounds
Posted by: nobama12 at October 25, 2011 07:04 AM (ykY2u)
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
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at October 25, 2011 07:18 AM (epBek)
So 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.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at October 25, 2011 07:41 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Pat M at October 25, 2011 08:51 AM (HtUUy)
DVD to ipad 3
Posted by: doumaduo at October 27, 2011 05:57 AM (7Mpa3)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2731 seconds, 370 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: steevy at October 24, 2011 04:55 PM (fyOgS)