Rand Paul Introduces His Tax Plan

[Weegle777 78]

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.

Exactly what I was saying.

[AUtiger98 24]

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.

Very good points.

I would say since Americans tend to accumulate debt at a rapid rate, most would find a way to spend the extra money they would bring home if the federal income tax were repealed. Another part of the fair tax I find appealing is no tax on used goods. So, if you buy a used car, house, or other used goods, no taxes would be paid on those items. This would be helpful to anyone at the bottom of our current tax structure.

[AUtiger98 24]

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.

So you're saying the income tax is both logical and moral, but susceptible to fraud and deception? To me that sounds like the definition of oxymoron.

[AuburnNTexas 7,142]

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.

We don't always agree but you are usually very thoughtful and present your views with clarity. in this case we agree a good bit on this. Is his plan perfect no, if this plan or a semblance of this plan does get passed the other side of the coin is where we will cut our current spending. This is where the special interests make things difficult. Whether you are on the side that is for increasing Military spending or Social spending, or Government Bureaucracy spending we all know there is waste in all three sectors. We have redundant Agencies in places we have military spending that the military doesn't want or ask for, we have waste and fraud in social programs helping the poor, disabled, military veterans, etc.

We have never been able to compromise and do what is best for this country because of special Interests and people in Government who want to get elected first, need the money from special interests, and then the country comes next.

Then we the people are also part of the issue. If you ask almost any American if they are for term limits most will say yes, if they are against wasteful spending/Pork Barrel spending they will say yes. But if you ask them something that affects them directly like a plant shutting down in their district that makes a vehicle the military no longer wants they will say no or not to build another government building in their district that is redundant they will say no. Both type things are wasteful but if they help your district you will re-elect the congressmen or Senator that supported them. Sometimes we the people need to make sacrifices also and be willing to elect people who are willing to do what's right even if it may hurt us a little bit.

It is easy to blame the evil politicians but we are the people who empower them.

So your point about Rand Paul has some validity in that he is willing to take stands that he believes is good for the country even if not always popular. Do I always agree with him no, will I vote for him I am not sure. But he is not a kook and I will listen to what he says and maybe he can shake up a system that needs shaking.

[channonc 466]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

[homersapien 11,370]

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.

So you're saying the income tax is both logical and moral, but susceptible to fraud and deception? To me that sounds like the definition of oxymoron.

I don't understand your point.

I said progressive rates in an income tax system is both logical and moral.

And I agreed with Titan that income taxes are more susceptible to fraud and deception than is a VAT tax (for example).

Those are unrelated, stand-alone statements.

[AuburnNTexas 7,142]

This was one of the better topics I have seen on this Forum because for once I am seeing a lot of agreement on both sides of the Political spectrum. The consensus seems to be the current Tax system is broken, some type of different system be it Flat Tax, VAT some other type of consumption based system should be used, no consensus as to which would be better but the fact we are talking about it without getting personal in most cases gives me hope there is a solution. The other thing that I like is both sides agree that something needs to be done in any one of these tax systems to protect the poor again the actual solution has not been agreed to but the fact that so many agree with the issue of protecting the poor is encouraging.

The people in this Forum have a pretty diverse group of political philosophies so I am thrilled to see that we can talk and agree on so much that is fundamentally in the best interests of the country. It is nice to be a Sunshine Pumper on Politics instead of just on football. It may never happen again but this gives me great hope for this country.

[JoeBags7277 734]

Pretty much everyone agrees that the tax code is unacceptable. What so many haven't gotten yet is that in crafting something that we can tolerate, everyone is going to have to put up with something they don't like in return for something they do. That goes for progressives, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and everyone in between. The corporate tax rate is entirely too high, and that fact is compounded by the fact that so many mega corporations don't even pay it, because they can afford the best tax lawyers who find all the loopholes. OTOH, most people in this country aren't going to go along with a tax plan that taxes a family at the poverty level at the same rate as the wealthiest- regardless of whether or not the wealthy pay a much higher amount. Don't even get me started on FICA taxes. Everyone has their sacred cows, and the consequence is we continue with this unworkable obscenity that only works for those who are able to game the system.

[Weegle777 78]

Say that we were to scrap taxation on industry. Scrap income tax, and raise sales tax on all consumable items. How much would that change the dynamics as far as bringing industry back to the U.S.? The thing about the economy being set back doesn't make sense because the more money that people have, the more they spend. Look at what happened when W gave back those small amounts in those checks to stimulate the economy. Most, if not all, spent the money instead of holding on to it. We need to get companies to bring their manufacturing back to the states.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Say that we were to scrap taxation on industry. Scrap income tax, and raise sales tax on all consumable items. How much would that change the dynamics as far as bringing industry back to the U.S.? The thing about the economy being set back doesn't make sense because the more money that people have, the more they spend. Look at what happened when W gave back those small amounts in those checks to stimulate the economy. Most, if not all, spent the money instead of holding on to it. We need to get companies to bring their manufacturing back to the states.

Why did American companies outsource? Tax policy? Or cheap labor, fewer environmental restrictions, no healthcare costs? Is there a fundamental hypocrisy in our trade policies? We do not allow workers to be exploited, the environment to be raped here at home but, we will allow our companies to go elsewhere and participate, we will consume the cheap products from countries who practice such?

[JoeBags7277 734]

A good commentary on how this plan is actually much more "progressive" than the progressive income tax.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/18/rand-paul-flat-tax/

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

I would like to see the numbers of how much a flat tax would generate in comparison to the current structure. I believe that if you eliminate the current loopholes and take away deductions that this would generate more money. I do agree that our corporate tax needs to be restructured also, it is laughable that companies like GE pay no taxes but have record profits. It is also criminal that companies like Disney who has record profits bring H-1B holders in to replace American Tech workers in Orlando and get away with it. There should be a flat tax on companies and do away with the loopholes. If it was lower rates and seemed fair most wouldn't balk at it but pay it. Current structures hit the middle class the most with more of their income going to taxes especially the small business owners.

[japantiger 4,051]

Pretty much everyone agrees that the tax code is unacceptable. What so many haven't gotten yet is that in crafting something that we can tolerate, everyone is going to have to put up with something they don't like in return for something they do. That goes for progressives, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and everyone in between. The corporate tax rate is entirely too high, and that fact is compounded by the fact that so many mega corporations don't even pay it, because they can afford the best tax lawyers who find all the loopholes. OTOH, most people in this country aren't going to go along with a tax plan that taxes a family at the poverty level at the same rate as the wealthiest- regardless of whether or not the wealthy pay a much higher amount. Don't even get me started on FICA taxes. Everyone has their sacred cows, and the consequence is we continue with this unworkable obscenity that only works for those who are able to game the system.

The flat tax as proposed is progressive tax system and taxes the poor at a 0 rate...

Using Senator Paul’s proposed tax plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay no taxes at all. One earning $60,000, would pay $1450, or 2.4 percent of income. A family earning $100,000 would pay $7250, or 7.2 percent of income. At $1 million, the tax would be $137,750 or 13.8 percent of income.

[japantiger 4,051]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

[AUTUmike 79]

Pretty much everyone agrees that the tax code is unacceptable. What so many haven't gotten yet is that in crafting something that we can tolerate, everyone is going to have to put up with something they don't like in return for something they do. That goes for progressives, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and everyone in between. The corporate tax rate is entirely too high, and that fact is compounded by the fact that so many mega corporations don't even pay it, because they can afford the best tax lawyers who find all the loopholes. OTOH, most people in this country aren't going to go along with a tax plan that taxes a family at the poverty level at the same rate as the wealthiest- regardless of whether or not the wealthy pay a much higher amount. Don't even get me started on FICA taxes. Everyone has their sacred cows, and the consequence is we continue with this unworkable obscenity that only works for those who are able to game the system.

The flat tax as proposed is progressive tax system and taxes the poor at a 0 rate...

Using Senator Paul’s proposed tax plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay no taxes at all. One earning $60,000, would pay $1450, or 2.4 percent of income. A family earning $100,000 would pay $7250, or 7.2 percent of income. At $1 million, the tax would be $137,750 or 13.8 percent of income.

In terms of income tax, that's all well and good (truly) as it is fairly progressive, despite the wealthiest Americans being the big winners of Paul's proposed plan. However, to date I have seen scant convincing evidence that the corporate tax rate should be lowered so drastically. As I've said before, most "evidence" of this nature is cited from polls or interviews with CEOs wherein they voice their strong aversion to a high corporate tax rate (because of course they do). While I think everyone can get on board with simplifying the tax code for corporations and individuals alike, the government still must collect taxes and this plan only works if spending is significantly cut across the board (which won't happen). But I think with alterations, some major, some minor, a framework like this has potential.

[AUTUmike 79]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

Gov. Brownback basically imposed policies of austerity in Kansas, with the aim of balancing the budget and spurring economic growth. Predictably, neither happened since austerity is a failed policy.

[AUDub 11,147]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

Gov. Brownback basically imposed policies of austerity in Kansas, with the aim of balancing the budget and spurring economic growth. Predictably, neither happened since austerity is a failed policy.

[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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

What do you mean by "site"? Topeka?

[homersapien 11,370]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

What do you mean by "site"? Topeka?

Grammar Nazi.

That's a common mistake I often make so it's obviously not worthy of comment.

(Topeka was funny though)

[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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

What do you mean by "site"? Topeka?

Grammar Nazi.

That's a common mistake I often make so it's obviously not worthy of comment.

(Topeka was funny though)

Yes, I have been meaning to speak with you about your careless errors lately, as well. Perhaps a little time on the eastern front will inspire you to be more careful?

[AuburnNTexas 7,142]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

The problem with Kansas is that Brownbeck carried it to an extreme. Some lowering of taxes while cleaning up wasteful spending would be a boon to the economy. Carried to far it hurts the economy they same thing with taxes that are raised to an extreme. New York in last few years has basically given new companies a huge tax break to re-locate to New York and it has helped only time will tell if they gave to large a break and if companies will stay once the break ends.

The economy is to complicated and there are so many variables it is very difficult to say for sure what Policy works. Long term the Texas economy which requires a balanced budget and on the whole keeps Taxes low seems to have been very effective even though some years have seen bumps.

Getting back to the Rand Paul plan like so many others have said while not perfect it has started people seriously looking at true tax reform which is what is needed and again a balance has to be found with different sides compromising. Needs to cut out loopholes for people and Corporations, needs to be designed to be progressive on lower end up to a fixed rate, it needs to produce enough revenue to pay our bills. In addition we need to really look at our spending and streamline it, reduce waste and redundancy while still meeting our Countries and peoples needs and that is a very difficult task.

[DKW 86 7,419]

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.

So you dont see any abuses in the present tax system with the bought and paid for big business exemptions and corporate welfare? You dont have a problem with any of the 1000s of loopholes in our present 70,000 page document? You are truly one of a kind to defend that mess.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Neal Boortz has been supporting, defending and proposing a Flat Tax for almost a decade.

Now Neal, a socially liberal, fiscal conservative (like myself) will be pilloried for not being from TPM or other so-called "Prog" site.

So of course half of America will never even listen to this discussion. They are too invested in the status quo of loopholes for friends and corporate welfare for donors.

[japantiger 4,051]

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.

I agree with you that this puts a concrete idea on the table worthy for discussion. I don't think the tax code should remain the same, but I also recognize how difficult it would be to move to a flat tax system that actually funds the government at reasonable levels. Now, of course, I am the first to tell you that income taxes are not the only source of revenue for the government... so if Senator Paul was willing to impose new fees and adjust current ones to reflect required revenues to run essential government functions then I would be willing to reconsider my stance. But tax cuts alone (loss of revenue) and spending cuts will not spur our economy. It will only weaken it over the long-term. Look at Kansas for example.

Can you clarify the KS example you site? Don't recognize the reference....

Gov. Brownback basically imposed policies of austerity in Kansas, with the aim of balancing the budget and spurring economic growth. Predictably, neither happened since austerity is a failed policy.

I've written extensively on austerity and stimulus. Austerity has worked in the UK...they are the same place as we are with less debt dragging them down...now, as to whether the KS version was right or not; economically, they rank #21 in actual economic performance and health...so slightly better than avg...their state GDP growth is the same as the US GDP growth and employment gains is running 2% annually since coming out of the recession...what measure(s) are you using to site "failed policy".

If you look at overall competitiveness, I would contend they haven't cut taxes enough given there are only 4-5 other states with higher State businesses taxes, they rank dead last on the "death tax" rate, and they are in the bottom 40% on all but one tax ranking...I use ALEX-Laffer analysis and survey generally as it provides a good overview of about 20 different measures and ranks each state; and their performance and competitive rankings are based on an equal weight of state-GDP groth, non farm employment growth and domestic migration.

[homersapien 11,370]

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.

So you dont see any abuses in the present tax system with the bought and paid for big business exemptions and corporate welfare? You dont have a problem with any of the 1000s of loopholes in our present 70,000 page document? You are truly one of a kind to defend that mess.

What exactly was it I said that suggested your response?

Did I say anything about current abuses?

Did I say anything about loopholes?

Did I defend our current tax system?

I don't care if you want to rant, but don't try to hang your straw man around my neck in doing so.

You beat all I've ever seen when it comes to inventing or imagining arguments in another's post.