Rand Paul Introduces His Tax Plan

[autigeremt 6,600]

Rand Paul

28 mins ·

I'm ready to drive a stake through the heart of the IRS -- and trash all 70,000 pages of our federal government's outdated, confusing tax code.

Today, I'm announcing my Fair and Flat tax plan that I will make the centerpiece of my first term as President of the United States -- a tax plan that puts over $2 TRILLION back in Americans' pockets, creates at least 1.4 million new jobs and turbo-charges our economy in the process.

You can already hear the shrieks and howls coming from the special interest lobby in Washington, D.C. over my announcement.

For far too long, Washington, D.C. bureaucrats and Big Government politicians have believed your money is theirs -- and they can spend it better than everyday hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs.

I disagree.

In fact, I believe if the Washington Machine's tax-and-spend policies aren't stopped, our economy will slide further down the slow-growth rut of the last decade.

That's why I'm proposing to put the Washington Machine on a much-needed diet by enacting the boldest and biggest tax cut in American history.

If passed into law, my tax plan would:

>>> End the workers tax: I will end the FICA payroll tax, the largest tax for many working Americans. It goes to zero.

>>> Eliminate the headaches and complication in filing federal taxes by allowing every taxpayer to file a simple, one-page return with a low and fair tax rate of 14.5%, saving American families over $2 TRILLION in the first 10 years;

>>> End corporate welfare and special tax breaks, eliminating the army of lobbyists and tax lawyers gaming the system. That means no more mom and pop small businesses paying 40% of their income in taxes, while big corporations -- armed with armies of slick lawyers -- pay zero;

>>> Provide a real economic stimulus to our economy by exploding the GDP by almost 10% over the first 10 years.

I understand my plan is bold.

But, I'm not interested in nibbling around the edges of "reforming" Washington.

I'm running for President to flip Washington upside-down on its head and Defeat the Machine.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I sure like Paul's plan here.

[Weegle777 78]

Very interesting plan.

[AURaptor 1,122]

It's certainly a positive move in getting the IRS dismantled.

[AUcivE09 582]

Is this actually possible? I like it and want to believe this is true, but could it really happen? I agree with many of those that say Rand's foreign policy is weak and may continue down the path Obama is currently following, but his here in the USA plans and strategies are what I believe we actually need - and that is why he gets my vote to this point.

[JoeBags7277 734]

There's an awful lot for anyone to like in this plan. The only clear losers so far as I can tell are IRS agents, CPAs, and tax lawyers.

[alexava 6,973]

I like the plan. I like most of Bernie Sanders ideas. Not sure any of it is possible.

[AUTUmike 79]

From a political standpoint, I think Paul should be attempting to lessen the perception that he is radical. Regardless of what you think of this plan, IMO it is a bit too bold if he wants to be elected.

[JoeBags7277 734]

From a political standpoint, I think Paul should be attempting to lessen the perception that he is radical. Regardless of what you think of this plan, IMO it is a bit too bold if he wants to be elected.

Not quite sure about that, but maybe that's because I'm a bit of a radical myself. The GOP has gone the "least radical" route for a while now, with little in the way of electoral success to show for it. Aside from that, realistic people who've observed politics for a while realize these plans that are unveiled during campaign season rarely come to fruition once the candidate becomes the officeholder, having to push it through his own party, then obtaining bipartisan support, and finally getting a bill placed on his deck to be signed. Any Rand Paul tax reform will probably look substantially different by that point, much to the chagrin of true believers like myself.

[AUTUmike 79]

From a political standpoint, I think Paul should be attempting to lessen the perception that he is radical. Regardless of what you think of this plan, IMO it is a bit too bold if he wants to be elected.

Not quite sure about that, but maybe that's because I'm a bit of a radical myself. The GOP has gone the "least radical" route for a while now, with little in the way of electoral success to show for it. Aside from that, realistic people who've observed politics for a while realize these plans that are unveiled during campaign season rarely come to fruition once the candidate becomes the officeholder, having to push it through his own party, then obtaining bipartisan support, and finally getting a bill placed on his deck to be signed. Any Rand Paul tax reform will probably look substantially different by that point, much to the chagrin of true believers like myself.

I agree if he won office, this plan would never see the light of day in its current form. But to even flirt with the nomination, you have to garner support from the middle 20 percent of the population and--just my opinion--this seems a little too bold. I'm interested to see how it will play against the other GOP candidates. Frankly, I think the more candidates that come out with plans like this, the better Jeb's chances are.

[channonc 466]

Horrible idea. Just a couple of thoughts... we get rid of FICA, which gets rid of SS and medicare. Don't agree that we should completely eliminate these programs. Going all the way to a flat tax means that our income taxes become much more regressive. Again, an idea I don't agree with. Sure, the idea of making things more "simple" is appealing, but simple doesn't always mean good.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Horrible idea. Just a couple of thoughts... we get rid of FICA, which gets rid of SS and medicare. Don't agree that we should completely eliminate these programs. Going all the way to a flat tax means that our income taxes become much more regressive. Again, an idea I don't agree with. Sure, the idea of making things more "simple" is appealing, but simple doesn't always mean good.

I suppose you could continue funding SS and Medicare, it would just be a line item in the general budget rather than a separate pool.

But I do agree about the regressive nature of the tax, unless there's some sort of threshold of income under which you don't owe. I don't think we should be taxing the money that is the bare minimum people need just to provide the basics. It should only be that we tax money over and above that. So then the question becomes, if you exempt income up to a certain amount, does his 14.5% rate still work?

[channonc 466]

An analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice say his plan would cost $1.2 T per year and $15 T over 10 years. That's a lot of $ to make up. They also say his plan includes a VAT to replace corporate income taxes and that the first $50K of income would be exempt. This makes it less regressive but creates a huge budget hole.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

A mix of good and bad. If only we had a system of government that allowed for thoughtful debate, compromise, and refinement of ideas, we could move forward. The "all or nothing", extreme partisan model must be fixed before we are able to fix anything else.

I do not see this plan as workable but, I think it is a great place to start a discussion. The IRS has become an inefficient, often abusive, agency. The U.S. tax code with all of it's complexities, is absurd. Upper middle class entrepreneurs are over taxed. We seemingly do not understand the differences between "investment" and REAL capital investment, job creation.

I like Rand Paul. I think he often gets unjustly criticized from BOTH sides for being "radical". IMO, he could be just what we need, willing to "shake things up" but, mindful of the need for bipartisan cooperation and, showing respect for democracy. I am particularly fond of his willingness to express ideas, not to simply criticize others. I highly respect what I perceive as a desire to effectively govern rather than perpetually playing the partisan political game. Rand's biggest problem may be that, he does not represent any one individual's "perfect" candidate. Unfortunately, most will not see that, that quality may very well make him the best candidate.

[Weegle777 78]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

Do you understand how regressive a tax system, that is primarily focused on basic necessities, would be? Do you understand the implications and therefore, the resistance (moral and intellectual) to such a system?

[Weegle777 78]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

Do you understand how regressive a tax system, that is primarily focused on basic necessities, would be? Do you understand the implications and therefore, the resistance (moral and intellectual) to such a system?

First, don't address me in that way. Now, every tax system, if based on income will be gamed by someone. History proves that. If one was based off of sales tax, every person would have to invest. I don't see the moral issue with this. Enlighten me.

[AUtiger98 24]

Today, I'm announcing my Fair and Flat tax plan

I'm kind of suprised he called it a Fair and Flat Tax plan. If he leans more toward the Fair Tax then I'm in. The president of Fair Tax Alabama told me a year ago, that there were over 100 sponsors of the Fair Tax Bill in Congress, so if a president were pitching the Fair Tax I think it would see the light of day.

[homersapien 11,367]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

Do you understand how regressive a tax system, that is primarily focused on basic necessities, would be? Do you understand the implications and therefore, the resistance (moral and intellectual) to such a system?

First, don't address me in that way. Now, every tax system, if based on income will be gamed by someone. History proves that. If one was based off of sales tax, every person would have to invest. I don't see the moral issue with this. Enlighten me.

"Don't address me that way?" WTF?

It was a reasonable response.

A national sales tax is very regressive. Now a sales tax on luxury goods, not so much.

[homersapien 11,367]

Today, I'm announcing my Fair and Flat tax plan

I'm kind of suprised he called it a Fair and Flat Tax plan. If he leans more toward the Fair Tax then I'm in. The president of Fair Tax Alabama told me a year ago, that there were over 100 sponsors of the Fair Tax Bill in Congress, so if a president were pitching the Fair Tax I think it would see the light of day.

"Fair and Flat" is an oxymoron.

Let's face it, some people just don't accept the moral value of a progressive tax system.

To me, it's both logical as well as moral.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

Do you understand how regressive a tax system, that is primarily focused on basic necessities, would be? Do you understand the implications and therefore, the resistance (moral and intellectual) to such a system?

First, don't address me in that way. Now, every tax system, if based on income will be gamed by someone. History proves that. If one was based off of sales tax, every person would have to invest. I don't see the moral issue with this. Enlighten me.

Address you what way?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

Do you understand how regressive a tax system, that is primarily focused on basic necessities, would be? Do you understand the implications and therefore, the resistance (moral and intellectual) to such a system?

First, don't address me in that way. Now, every tax system, if based on income will be gamed by someone. History proves that. If one was based off of sales tax, every person would have to invest. I don't see the moral issue with this. Enlighten me.

"Don't address me that way?" WTF?

It was a reasonable response.

A national sales tax is very regressive. Now a sales tax on luxury goods, not so much.

I've heard of a consumption based tax that could resolve that issue though. I believe the idea was a "pre-bate"...basically a certain dollar amount of expenses deemed to be the amount a normal person or family would have to spend just to be able to live. It would operate essentially like a minimum threshold where you essentially would be tax free. Only spending above that amount would be taxed.

To me though, the problem is that it doesn't seem to scale well. Rich people do consume more stuff, but not astronomically more. No matter how much money they have, they can only actually buy so much more than a middle class person. And the things they do buy are only so much more expensive.

[homersapien 11,367]

The part that gets me about income taxes is that their will always be a group or two that will game the system. If a system could be devised that would be based off of a national sales tax, ALL would have to invest in the system because everyone has to eat and clothe themselves.

Do you understand how regressive a tax system, that is primarily focused on basic necessities, would be? Do you understand the implications and therefore, the resistance (moral and intellectual) to such a system?

First, don't address me in that way. Now, every tax system, if based on income will be gamed by someone. History proves that. If one was based off of sales tax, every person would have to invest. I don't see the moral issue with this. Enlighten me.

"Don't address me that way?" WTF?

It was a reasonable response.

A national sales tax is very regressive. Now a sales tax on luxury goods, not so much.

I've heard of a consumption based tax that could resolve that issue though. I believe the idea was a "pre-bate"...basically a certain dollar amount of expenses deemed to be the amount a normal person or family would have to spend just to be able to live. It would operate essentially like a minimum threshold where you essentially would be tax free. Only spending above that amount would be taxed.

To me though, the problem is that it doesn't seem to scale well. Rich people do consume more stuff, but not astronomically more. No matter how much money they have, they can only actually buy so much more than a middle class person. And the things they do buy are only so much more expensive.

Agreed. It's possible to tailor a consumption taxes to minimize the problems of regressiveness.

A VAT is used by a lot of countries. But like you said there are pros and cons with consumption taxes as well. But I think they are more philosophically appealing than income taxes.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The thing I do like about consumption taxes is that it mitigates tax avoidance. Right now there tons of people dealing in cash who are off the tax grid. Whether it's illegal gambling, dealing drugs, prostitution, illegal immigrants, etc...that income is hidden and untaxed. But even illegal gamblers, undocumented immigrants, prostitutes and drug dealers (note: I'm not equating immigrants with criminals here, just noting how they make money oftentimes) have to buy things. You can only deal in cash for goods privately for so much. Most of what you buy would get hit by the VAT or consumption tax. So for the most part, everyone ends up with skin in the game.

[homersapien 11,367]

The thing I do like about consumption taxes is that it mitigates tax avoidance. Right now there tons of people dealing in cash who are off the tax grid. Whether it's illegal gambling, dealing drugs, prostitution, illegal immigrants, etc...that income is hidden and untaxed. But even illegal gamblers, undocumented immigrants, prostitutes and drug dealers (note: I'm not equating immigrants with criminals here, just noting how they make money oftentimes) have to buy things. You can only deal in cash for goods privately for so much. Most of what you buy would get hit by the VAT or consumption tax. So for the most part, everyone ends up with skin in the game.

Agreed. Income taxes are inherently susceptible to fraud and deception.