9 ms·

Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over

47 points by kjw 11y ago

kjw 11y ago
If you get the paywall, either use a Google search result, or use this link - https://archive.is/mfEvt https://archive.is/mfEvt
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Saving you a click: Rand Paul advocates for the 'flat tax'.
- criley2 11y ago
  There's some interesting bits like the earned income tax credit for the working class stays, and the first 50,000$ of income of a family of 4 wouldn't be taxed. Capital gains are left unmentioned (probably because they're being abolished, and this is most likely going to reduce the effective tax rate on capitalists to ~0.0% -- no capital gains, no estate tax, no gift tax, so in essence taxes will finally be 0% for the oligarchy. Policy like this helps pave the way for what we all know is true: we're going to meet the first trillionaires in our lifetime). The other critical problem they don't mention is: * $2 trillion dollar tax cut = $2 trillion dollar revenue cut. There is no mention of cutting spending, and there IS mention of "growing economy", so there is only one conclusion: "Liberal Stimulus". When you cut revenue by $2 trillion and leave spending the same, you end up issuing debt to cover the deficit. It's the same debt-driven tax scheme literally every republican has proposed since Reagan (who did the exact same thing perfectly: tax cuts + spending increases = growing economy and growing debt).
  - nonexpectation 11y ago
    Capital gains tax is mentioned: "I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest."
  - orkoden 11y ago
    Debt isn't that bad for a state. A state isn't a company and has to make a profit. It's there to provide infrastructure, stability, and security. As long a state can afford to pay the interest rates, how high the debt is matters less. Especially for the major economies in the world today it's even less problematic. The USA, China, Japan or any other G7 state is basically safe from bankruptcy, because it would disrupt the world economy too much. Just look at the banking crisis and the bailouts there.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I wouldn't mind so much if they would be honest about it. "We will cut taxes and increase the deficit and thereby stimulate the economy." OK, cool. But instead what people like Paul say is, "We will cut taxes and this will result in a net increase in revenue by stimulating the economy."
  - zbyte64 11y ago
    Rand Paul could spin the $2 trillion dollar revenue cut: 1) The economy would grow and so would revenues 2) Cut spending: food stamps, social security, education, etc. But lets not mention defence.
    - criley2 11y ago
      You're right, that's the standard spin that is disproven by evidence. Still used though. You can point to the exact policy failing: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article6514956.html http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article6514956.... But the spin is more effective than the facts, so who cares.
  - steve-howard 11y ago
    There is a mention of cutting spending towards the end: >And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts. Of course, anyone can claim their unworkable tax system is great when coupled with unspecified spending cuts.
omouse 11y ago
Disrupt the tax system! woohoo! ;p
trimble-alum 11y ago
Bernie Sanders is the only 2016 candidate serious about kicking out the plutocracy.
- mlitchard 11y ago
  Yes, and if he even comes close to getting the nomination it will signal a huge change in American politics.
mikeash 11y ago
Yay, tax code simplification. Oh crap, "flat tax." This is the fundamental problem. Everybody wants a simpler tax system. But nobody can agree on which parts to remove, or how to change it. The current system is close to what you get when everybody tries to get what they want. Even if you blew it up and started over, I think you'd get back to the current state pretty fast. Edit: everybody can stop replying to my comment proposing your favorite simplified tax system and explaining why it's great. You're missing the point here. If you want to discuss your favorite tax system, make a top-level comment.
- Retra 11y ago
  This is how I feel about anarchists. "Things would be better if we did away with the system." "But what about when things go wrong?" "Well, there would be agreements in place to handle that." "Yes, that's called a 'system of government.'" Or, "The government shouldn't tell me what to do." "The word 'govern' literally means 'to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of people.' That is, in fact, the whole point of government: to tell you what to do."
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I remember a comment on HN a little while ago which went something like, "Why does the government need to get involved? Why can't people just come together and figure out how to deal with it?" I replied pointing out that this is what government is.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      That's just playing with multiple definitions. When people say "government" they mean the government, that is, the representative bodies that form our current system, not the abstract concept of any system by which a state is governed. Governance is certainly necessary. Having "a government" is just one possible way of achieving it.
    - dnautics 11y ago
      it is what government is, with guns and jails.
tunesmith 11y ago
I've always wondered exactly where the line is between ignorance and messaging for politicians. Like, when he says, "[Obama's] redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families." He can't actually believe that is a strictly true statement. I'd think that any Republican politician with an understanding of economics would have to believe that a president's policies are at best contributory rather than a distinct cause. I get it as messaging; if one believes that progressive taxation has side effects that cause inequality, then they'd want to gloss over things to blame the presidency for it. So, I tend to believe that most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public. But sometimes I wonder if for a lot of these politicians, how much of what they say is actually because of willful ignorance rather than messaging. Like that guy with the snowball that argued against global warming, that almost definitely has to be chutzpah rather than stupidity, right? Like, he would understand the concept that just because a stock price spikes down, it could still be true that the stock market is going up over time. So he has to secretly understand the argument about global warming, right? And then we waste our time trying to explain how a snowball doesn't disprove anything, and he doesn't care because he already knows that. There's got to be a term more accurate than chutzpah for someone that deliberately lies and plays dumb, knowing they can get away with it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Maybe you could use the word "sophistry"? I don't agree for TFA, however. Paul didn't have much chance anyway, and in proposing this he pretty much drops out of the running completely. You can't get far without the corporate executive class bankrolling your superPAC. So, it's not perfect (he's keeping the mortgage deduction!), but relative to most politicians it's a good effort.
- patdennis 11y ago
  >most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public Yes, sort of, but the reality of these things are so well understood all politicians that there's not often that much of a reason to discuss these things outright. When a politician (and by "politician," I do not mean a single person. I mean an amalgam of the politician, their staffers, and their advisers) are weighing an issue, the actual merits of the arguments are just a part of the equation. They're weighing the interests of various groups and constituencies, they're considering coalitions and alliances and favors, and making a pragmatic decision. Usually a mix of their conscience, their constituents, their fundraisers, and their party. Rand is a bit of an outlier on this front because he is a legitimate True Believer, but he's still a pragmatic true believer. Then they hire someone like me to turn it into the soul deadening messaging. But, yes, these people understand both sides of the issue. They are usually very smart. And if they don't understand the other side of the issue, their close advisers do.
ccockerhamkc 11y ago
"Taxes are complicated" translates to: "People don't understand the rules for tax brackets that don't apply to them and think they are getting screwed over. So let's change the tax laws to save those(people or businesses) making more than $100k a year some money while doing nothing to help those making less."
- facetube 11y ago
  I'm not in favor of any of the flat tax proposals... but this is the tax system where receiving a 1099 for from-home software development means you literally have to get out a tape measure and measure the room where you did the work. The exemption allowance worksheet on the W-4 is similarly insane. There's a lot that could be done to make the tax system here less complicated without touching the tax rates themselves.
  - ccockerhamkc 11y ago
    Yeah? You don't know if your room is a 10X20? You make it sound like this is some crazy task that requires some special ability.
orkoden 11y ago
Flat tax benefits the top incomes more than the bottom ones. But we now know for certain that trickle down just doesn't work and that increasing income for the poorest benefits the economy the most. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income-families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low... Getting rid of exemptions and special rules is a good idea to reduce bureaucracy. You can replace tax exemptions with direct subsidies to make the amount spent on it more transparent. A progressive income tax makes a lot of sense and has lots of configuration levers.
- refurb 11y ago
  Flat tax benefits the top incomes more than the bottom ones. Not under Paul's proposal...."I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest." Take a look at what tax rate the high-earns are paying. It can often be a small percentage than lower income earners. If the rate was flat at 14.5% for all income (also removing a lot of the current exemptions), I think you'd see high income earner's overall tax rate increase.
qsymmachus 11y ago
And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys. I think this is a point people across the political spectrum agree with. It does not follow, however, that simplifying the tax code would require a regressive flat tax. One could easily imagine a simplified tax code that still has progressive tax brackets. The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%. This would be a massive tax cut for the wealthy, unequivocally – a 25.1 % lower tax rate for the top bracket. The idea that this cut would be offset by closing unnamed loopholes is disingenuous at best. A 14.5% tax rate also conveniently matches the current maximum capital gains tax rate of 15%, which is the effective tax rate the ultra wealthy already pay.
- douglasisshiny 11y ago
  Also to keep in mind: the IRS has had large cuts in recent years, making them a less effective agency.
- refurb 11y ago
  It does not follow, however, that simplifying the tax code would require a regressive flat tax. If you allow the first $50K tax-free, it's not really regressive, is it?
- jonas21 11y ago
  The current maximum long-term capital gains tax rate is 20%, so this would even be a cut on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_Unite...
- dnautics 11y ago
  > A 14.5% tax rate also conveniently matches the current maximum capital gains tax rate of 15%, which is the effective tax rate the ultra wealthy already pay That's exactly the point. So now the middle class can pay what the wealthy already pay.
acconrad 11y ago
TLDR: Rand Paul pushes for a 14.5% flat tax. And of course when asked about how this would create a larger deficit, he never actually asserts that his flat 14.5% tax across the board would actually balance the budget. But here's the crazy thing: his proposal isn't even a flat-tax policy! He agrees that the first $50,000 for a family of four shouldn't be taxed. That's a progressive tax plan. And it makes sense right - up to a certain amount of income, one makes so little money that need a bit more help than others to get by. Makes sense...but then you could logically assert the converse - that those making so much money need far less help than others to get by, and therefore could be taxed more without affecting their lifestyles. And this is why a progressive tax plan works in the United States - there exists an income level based on the cost of consumer staples, housing, and transportation, that allows one to be a productive member of society. And so the further away from you get from that magic number (or delta of that number), the more that taxes have an effect either on the individual or the community as a whole. A family cannot get by on $1 a year. A billionaire simply does not need a billion dollars. The burden on them is far different - which is why their tax burden should reflect that.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >He agrees that the first $50,000 for a family of four shouldn't be taxed. I live in an expensive part of Chicago. $50k for me has nothing in common with some rural Alabama family making $50k. This is one of the reasons why the flat tax is wrong. It lacks the flexibility and subtlety of a more complex tax system. In a nation this large with so many different wealth levels, a non-progressive tax is just asinine. But it engages conservative low information voters who just want easy cowboy-ish answers to complex problems, especially if they're the ones in he rural south who will benefit from this kind of plan more than northern Democratic urban dwellers.
  - rconti 11y ago
    How does our current (theoretically) progressive tax system factor in cost-of-living?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
elchief 11y ago
You know what I'd like to see? Fewer total laws in America. The law is so complex in America, that you probably break several laws a day, without knowing. And it costs law makers little to make new ones, and it's a pain to get rid of old ones. I'd love to see a) a huge clean up of out-dated and unnecessary laws. b) then a cap on the total number of laws. If they want to add a new one, they need to repeal an old one. (Allow for very minor growth over time as society becomes more complex).
- qsymmachus 11y ago
  So what you're saying is the law needs a good refactoring? :)
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    That is precisely what is necessary. Businesses have to continually cut complexity to keep costs down and stay competitive, but for a government, especially the federal government of the richest nation in history, the costs of steadily rising complexity are low, and personal consequences minor. Often times complexity is retained or expanded unnecessarily purely for political reasons, such as representatives of districts refusing to close redundant military bases that the Pentagon doesn't even want for fear of losing their seat in the next election.
    - FlailFast 11y ago
      Very apropos username btw, the law could use a good "rm -rf /" :)
  - lisowski 11y ago
    One of the biggest problems in our government was never implementing a way to refactor without grand upheaval. Also they didn't really think about scale very well and campaign funding restrictions. I feel we are in a place right now where special interest is more important than public.
- rayiner 11y ago
fredgrott 11y ago
Some Notes: Pull out that IRS booklet you might have hidden if you examine the graph: Over 65% of gov receipts are from income tax and payroll taxes. from SBA there are only 35 million businesses US pop is 307 million(2007 numbers) It is not a simple solution where you say A or B group is not paying enough..flat tax is simplistic band-aid suggested by simpletons
rayiner 11y ago
I love the idea of a flat tax, but flat taxes don't get rid of the complexities of the tax code. The tax code is definitely full of random cruft, but the bread and butter that keeps the IRS and all those tax attorneys busy are a few principled features of the system: taxing net rather than gross income, deducting the value of depreciating capital assets over an amortization schedule, taxing income internationally, taxing capital gains differently than income, not taxing certain intra-familial transfers, etc. Most of the complexity of tax accounting is complexity that's intrinsic to accounting itself. NB: If you want to learn more about the theory of the U.S. tax code, I can't recommend this book enough: http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation-Concepts-Insights/dp/1599419378/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434653971&sr=1-3&keywords=federal+income+taxation http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation-Concepts-Insig...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ...inter-familial transfers... Did you intend intra-familial? Like inheritance and 529 plans, right?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Yup. :)
- driverdan 11y ago
  > flat taxes don't get rid of the complexities of the tax code Most flat tax proposals don't allow for exemptions. You pay your taxes off your gross salary, full stop. That would eliminate 99% of the tax code complexity for most individuals.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The median individual return is under $50,000, and more than 80% of filers in that group just take the standard deduction. Not to mention, they get free use of most electronic preparation services.
  - big_maybe 11y ago
Animats 11y ago
Oh, another right-wing "flat tax" guy. Somehow, these simplified tax schemes always result in lower taxes for rich people. The tax code is complicated because of lobbying for exceptions. Propose removing some of those exceptions, and the lobbyists will line up in the House and Senate office buildings. (There's a book about that, "Showdown at Gucci Gulch". The cover picture is of lobbyists lining up.)
devy 11y ago
Interestingly, the 14.25% tax rate is not new. Donald Trump proposed in his 2000 presidential bid. At the time, 14.25% one -time wealth tax on personal wealth with $10MM or more would collect $5.7 trillion, which wipe the ENTIRE U.S. debt. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm
- jessaustin 11y ago
  "One-time" taxes feel a bit like theft, though, don't they? The follow-on effects wouldn't be pretty either, after the billionaires realize how foolish it is to keep their money in USA accounts.
- driverdan 11y ago
  A flat tax was proposed long before Trump.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Interestingly, the 14.25% tax rate is not new. Paul proposes a 14.5% rate, so, even if novelty or lack thereof was relevant, I'm not sure what the relevance of the novelty of a 14.25% rate would be. > 14.25% one -time wealth tax on personal wealth Yeah, not only is 14.25% different from 14.5%, but a one-time wealth tax is different than an income tax. So, again, what's the relevance?
astraelraen 11y ago
1991 Master Tax Guide versus 2012 Master Tax Guide https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1510099/linked/MasterTax%20Comparison.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1510099/linked/MasterTax...
jws 11y ago
United States tax complexity isn't because of the shape of the tax(income) function. That function is the most important part of tax to most Americans, but the complexity comes from two other places: 1) Some people will game the system for economic advantage. Of the 321M Americans, a certain portion are both extremely clever and amoral. A lot of the code is a response to "They did what‽" 2) Americans tend to have an inbuilt belief that everyone should make it on their own which manifests into the government not "giving" things to people, even if it is to induce a person to accomplish the government's goal. Since it is politically difficult for the government to use payments to change people's behavior it is easier to "not take as much" instead and accomplish the same end with a tax credit. This pushes all sorts of policy and governance into the tax code.¹ ␄ ¹ As an example, I have in the past claimed "historic building renovation" tax credits. I have never renovated a historic building. My state wants to spend $X to preserve historic buildings, but they politically can't give $X to people preserving buildings. So instead, they give transferable tax credits worth $X to the renovators, who probably aren't paying much tax (because they are in the business renovating historic buildings, like that pays) and don't have a use for the credit. If you know the right finance person, you will find there is a quiet market that connects sellers and buyers, so you can buy credits and split the savings with the seller 80/20 if I recall. It's a stupidly complex system that only puts 80% of the state's cost into what it wanted done, but at least they didn't give anyone money to preserve buildings.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut Apparently, Rand Paul thinks he's a dictator, not a Senator: he is proposing, not announcing a tax cut. > The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.” Which is odd, since the proposal is neither fair nor flat. > The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years. Abolishing payroll taxes might be a good idea, though since federal payroll taxes are dedicated levies to support certain programs, one needs to address whether this is abolishing the programs (Social Security and Medicare) or changing their funding source to draw from general revenues. Any evaluation of the proposal to eliminate these taxes is obviously strongly affected by this, which Paul does not address. Eliminating the employer share of payroll taxes (combined with the minimum wage, which limits the minimum payroll cost before payroll taxes) does increase the incentive to hire workers at the low end of the pay scale, and increase the nominal pay level that employers can offer for employees that they would already be fully incentivized to hire at higher levels; eliminating the employee share has no impact on incentive to hire or nominal wages, but does increase after tax income at any nominal wage level. The claim that doing this would raise after tax income by "at least 15%" over any time period is in serious need of some justification; certainly, at the low-end of the scale, that seems to be well within the direct effect, but for employees at the higher-end of the wage scale (after the Social Security cap), it would have a much smaller direct effect; so, what does this number really refer to and how is it justified? > I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. While I like the idea of eliminating distinctions between different sources of income -- particularly capital income subject to reduced capital gains tax, labor income subject to normal income tax plus payroll tax, and miscellaneous income subject to normal income tax but not payroll tax, these sentences also reveal that the proposal is not flat, and also (unless major features related to what is described here exist that are omitted in the description) its also not fair. Its not flat, but a two-tier progressive tax system, because it has a range with a 0% marginal rate, and a range with a 14.5% marginal rate. That's progressive, not flat. Its not fair (with the caveat above) because its a progressive system in which income earned over several year period but realized at a particular point is treated the same as income earned in the period realized. This is a fairness issue that is addressed (poorly, to be sure, and a better mechanism is definitely needed) by the existing distinction between other income (including short-term capital gains) and long-term capital gains. The current system is roughly fair (ignoring the disparate impact of payroll taxes and payroll tax supported programs, just considering income/capital gains taxes) between pure wage earners and those who supplement wages with some long-term capital holdings but who don't have enough long-term capital to structure trades to derive substantial continuous year-over-year income from different batches of long-term holdings, but unfair between both those groups and those who are major capitalists, who are favored over both the other groups. Rand's proposal (assuming it doesn't have major relevant features that are not described) is roughly fair between workers and large-scale capital holders, but unfair between both those groups and small-scale capital holders, who are disfavored compared to either other group. As such, it is most unfavorable to the group moving out of the laborer category into the capitalist category. > The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. Because it is, enormously. > But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. As, for that matter, was Rand's plan. The people he refers to helping him right it are both rich and politically connected, as is Rand himself. So what? Who designed it is a different question than how it distributes tax burden relative to Rand's plan. And while the present system may have been predominantly designed by the "rich and politically connected", and may even excessively favor the rich, Rand's plan is still a tax cut that disproportionately favors the rich. > Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%. The rich won't be able to control legal entities outside US tax jurisdiction that are the actual recipients of income and expend it for the benefit of the owners? Because that's one of the main ways they have of evading tax now -- not being the legal recipient of income. No matter how you structure a tax on income, as long as people can benefit without being the legal recipient of income, they can avoid it. I'll trust claim that you've actually got a plan that eliminates all avenues to evasion when the details of how you plan to do that are subject to scrutiny. Until then, its just puffery. Also, both the mortgage and charity deductions are tools for evading taxes, particularly the charity deduction. But Paul plans on keeping those. He also addresses only deductions, but not credits -- many credits are popularly seen as loopholes used for evasion by the rich, and other credits are distinctly major tools of aiding those on the lower end of the income distribution, particularly EITC. Is he using sloppy language and meaning deductions and credits when he talks about deductions, or does he plan to leave credits alone preserving the "loopholes" that take that form, or has he just omitted an explanation of how he would handle existing credits? The handwaving here that the elimination of "tax loopholes" would somehow shift this from the obvious disproportionate pro-wealthy tax burden shift into something more fair needs some quantitative support. > The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? Well, duh, of course it will. > Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs. While the Tax Foundation is a "non-partisan" right-wing think tank that hasn't ever seen a tax cut for the wealthy that it doesn't like, I'll note that even Rand's claim about the Tax Foundation's findings actually doesn't address deficit/revenue claims at all. > my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts. Over how much time? And, of course, if your only statement of deficit impact one way or the other is "when combined with my package of spending cuts", I then can't even begin to consider the merits of your tax plan without first having bought into your particular package of spending cuts.
Simulacra 11y ago
I like this guy more and more each day. I've grown so weary of the political parties that I'm desperately seeking a really different candidate who can push a more libertarian agenda. I just hope he sticks to his word.
Simulacra 11y ago
I might add as a former lobbyist, everything he said in the article about my former profession is absolutely correct. Every day we analyzed policy to find ways for our clients (corporations) to increase profits, decrease costs, and eliminate taxes. On the other hand we did a lot of good for small and medium sized business. Unfortunately working for small and mid-sized businesses, and average citizens, doesn't pay the bills. I just bought my first house, and I'm starting to save and budget wisely for my family. Anything anyone - be it the President, congress, or otherwise - can do to reduce my tax burden, reduce government involvement in my life, and increase money for my family, is a good thing in my book. Like I said in my last comment: I'm so sick of both parties that I'm less interesting in "Republican" or "Democrat" and more interested in the actual person.
oldpond 11y ago
This is good spin-doctoring. The financial sector always wants to point the finger at taxes. The problem is still the banks. Declare debt amnesty, regulate the banks. Watch the economy soar.
ivan_ah 11y ago
Observation 1: Nice idea, but what remains to be filled in is why people who earn 1M per year will want to give $145,000 to the gov. every year, instead of continuing to use N levels of ownership indirection and contribute-money-to-the-budget-like-right-now-this-year half of this amount? Or maybe even less if Investment gains or holding company? Not sure how income from rent counts. So in terms of "let's cleanup the API" its a great idea, but how do you make the real estate owners and corporates pay all of a sudden? [1] Observation 2: the minimum income before you start to get taxed, is a very interesting number. A half-step towards having a guaranteed minimum income for everyone, is to set this "target number" as the income where taxation starts. Thought experiment. If the tax-exempt portion of your income were increased to $15k, or $20k, how would that affect people's choice of occupation? The Hipsters will definitely be in---they're like "$20k tax-free, I'm like a lunberjack/lumberjess living out in the wilderness who pays no taxes; that's my beer and bike money and I don't need more." (Such an increase in the "personal amount" will make a big hole in the budget, but ask your self this, why are we taxing people who make $14k per year?) __________________ [1] http://www.blue-route.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/3-individual-and-corporate-income-taxes-as-share-of-total-federal-revenue-1934-to-2015-national-priorities-project.png http://www.blue-route.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/3-...
ende 11y ago
I say we axe income tax completely. Two reasons: 1) even a progressive income tax is highly regressive when one considers that the wealthy mostly don't even earn employment income and therefore don't pay tax on it, and 2) taxation on income is the source of most discontent with redistributive policies. I propose a multi-layered tax code operating in coordination at each level of government. 1) Land Value Tax collected by local governments, with land valuations determined at the state level and the revenue redistributed as Universal Basic Income by the Federal government (your SSN becomes your UBI account number). Local governments may in turn add a percentage to the LVT to replace property tax revenues. Minor recipients of UBI (below age of 18) receive their income as a school voucher. The LVT replaces income and payroll taxes as the majority of aggregate national tax revenue, and the UBI replaces SS, EITC, and a host of other safety net programs. 2) a Progressive VAT to be collected by the states with Federal revenue sharing. This becomes the second largest source of tax revenue and funds the majority of state functions, with the Congress taxing a portion of state VAT revenues to fund the Federal government. Most domestic spending programs would be devolved to the states to fund and manage directly rather than redistribute as block grants. The VAT would be progressive in that it would primarily target non-essentials (not food, for example). 3) the rest of Federal revenue sources would come from taxing financial instruments (capital gains, etc), as well as its traditional sources like corporate tax, tariffs, duties, etc. It would also have the option of increasing its share of the VAT. The Federal budget would be significantly smaller than it is today but would be free of the large domestic spending programs (which it would still regulate), as well as from pork barrelling which would instead never leave state borders to begin with. Federal spending would instead focus on interstate and international commerce, defense, national initiatives (nasa, nih, etc). So yea, just a simple adjustment ;)

47 points by kjw 11y ago

kjw 11y ago

If you get the paywall, either use a Google search result, or use this link - https://archive.is/mfEvt https://archive.is/mfEvt

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

Saving you a click: Rand Paul advocates for the 'flat tax'.

criley2 11y ago
There's some interesting bits like the earned income tax credit for the working class stays, and the first 50,000$ of income of a family of 4 wouldn't be taxed. Capital gains are left unmentioned (probably because they're being abolished, and this is most likely going to reduce the effective tax rate on capitalists to ~0.0% -- no capital gains, no estate tax, no gift tax, so in essence taxes will finally be 0% for the oligarchy. Policy like this helps pave the way for what we all know is true: we're going to meet the first trillionaires in our lifetime). The other critical problem they don't mention is: * $2 trillion dollar tax cut = $2 trillion dollar revenue cut. There is no mention of cutting spending, and there IS mention of "growing economy", so there is only one conclusion: "Liberal Stimulus". When you cut revenue by $2 trillion and leave spending the same, you end up issuing debt to cover the deficit. It's the same debt-driven tax scheme literally every republican has proposed since Reagan (who did the exact same thing perfectly: tax cuts + spending increases = growing economy and growing debt).
- nonexpectation 11y ago
  Capital gains tax is mentioned: "I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest."
- orkoden 11y ago
  Debt isn't that bad for a state. A state isn't a company and has to make a profit. It's there to provide infrastructure, stability, and security. As long a state can afford to pay the interest rates, how high the debt is matters less. Especially for the major economies in the world today it's even less problematic. The USA, China, Japan or any other G7 state is basically safe from bankruptcy, because it would disrupt the world economy too much. Just look at the banking crisis and the bailouts there.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I wouldn't mind so much if they would be honest about it. "We will cut taxes and increase the deficit and thereby stimulate the economy." OK, cool. But instead what people like Paul say is, "We will cut taxes and this will result in a net increase in revenue by stimulating the economy."
- zbyte64 11y ago
  Rand Paul could spin the $2 trillion dollar revenue cut: 1) The economy would grow and so would revenues 2) Cut spending: food stamps, social security, education, etc. But lets not mention defence.
  - criley2 11y ago
    You're right, that's the standard spin that is disproven by evidence. Still used though. You can point to the exact policy failing: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article6514956.html http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article6514956.... But the spin is more effective than the facts, so who cares.
- steve-howard 11y ago
  There is a mention of cutting spending towards the end: >And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts. Of course, anyone can claim their unworkable tax system is great when coupled with unspecified spending cuts.

omouse 11y ago

Disrupt the tax system! woohoo! ;p

trimble-alum 11y ago

Bernie Sanders is the only 2016 candidate serious about kicking out the plutocracy.

mlitchard 11y ago
Yes, and if he even comes close to getting the nomination it will signal a huge change in American politics.

mikeash 11y ago

Yay, tax code simplification. Oh crap, "flat tax." This is the fundamental problem. Everybody wants a simpler tax system. But nobody can agree on which parts to remove, or how to change it. The current system is close to what you get when everybody tries to get what they want. Even if you blew it up and started over, I think you'd get back to the current state pretty fast. Edit: everybody can stop replying to my comment proposing your favorite simplified tax system and explaining why it's great. You're missing the point here. If you want to discuss your favorite tax system, make a top-level comment.

Retra 11y ago
This is how I feel about anarchists. "Things would be better if we did away with the system." "But what about when things go wrong?" "Well, there would be agreements in place to handle that." "Yes, that's called a 'system of government.'" Or, "The government shouldn't tell me what to do." "The word 'govern' literally means 'to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of people.' That is, in fact, the whole point of government: to tell you what to do."
- mikeash 11y ago
  I remember a comment on HN a little while ago which went something like, "Why does the government need to get involved? Why can't people just come together and figure out how to deal with it?" I replied pointing out that this is what government is.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    That's just playing with multiple definitions. When people say "government" they mean the government, that is, the representative bodies that form our current system, not the abstract concept of any system by which a state is governed. Governance is certainly necessary. Having "a government" is just one possible way of achieving it.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    it is what government is, with guns and jails.

tunesmith 11y ago

I've always wondered exactly where the line is between ignorance and messaging for politicians. Like, when he says, "[Obama's] redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families." He can't actually believe that is a strictly true statement. I'd think that any Republican politician with an understanding of economics would have to believe that a president's policies are at best contributory rather than a distinct cause. I get it as messaging; if one believes that progressive taxation has side effects that cause inequality, then they'd want to gloss over things to blame the presidency for it. So, I tend to believe that most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public. But sometimes I wonder if for a lot of these politicians, how much of what they say is actually because of willful ignorance rather than messaging. Like that guy with the snowball that argued against global warming, that almost definitely has to be chutzpah rather than stupidity, right? Like, he would understand the concept that just because a stock price spikes down, it could still be true that the stock market is going up over time. So he has to secretly understand the argument about global warming, right? And then we waste our time trying to explain how a snowball doesn't disprove anything, and he doesn't care because he already knows that. There's got to be a term more accurate than chutzpah for someone that deliberately lies and plays dumb, knowing they can get away with it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 11y ago
Maybe you could use the word "sophistry"? I don't agree for TFA, however. Paul didn't have much chance anyway, and in proposing this he pretty much drops out of the running completely. You can't get far without the corporate executive class bankrolling your superPAC. So, it's not perfect (he's keeping the mortgage deduction!), but relative to most politicians it's a good effort.
patdennis 11y ago
>most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public Yes, sort of, but the reality of these things are so well understood all politicians that there's not often that much of a reason to discuss these things outright. When a politician (and by "politician," I do not mean a single person. I mean an amalgam of the politician, their staffers, and their advisers) are weighing an issue, the actual merits of the arguments are just a part of the equation. They're weighing the interests of various groups and constituencies, they're considering coalitions and alliances and favors, and making a pragmatic decision. Usually a mix of their conscience, their constituents, their fundraisers, and their party. Rand is a bit of an outlier on this front because he is a legitimate True Believer, but he's still a pragmatic true believer. Then they hire someone like me to turn it into the soul deadening messaging. But, yes, these people understand both sides of the issue. They are usually very smart. And if they don't understand the other side of the issue, their close advisers do.

ccockerhamkc 11y ago

"Taxes are complicated" translates to: "People don't understand the rules for tax brackets that don't apply to them and think they are getting screwed over. So let's change the tax laws to save those(people or businesses) making more than $100k a year some money while doing nothing to help those making less."

facetube 11y ago
I'm not in favor of any of the flat tax proposals... but this is the tax system where receiving a 1099 for from-home software development means you literally have to get out a tape measure and measure the room where you did the work. The exemption allowance worksheet on the W-4 is similarly insane. There's a lot that could be done to make the tax system here less complicated without touching the tax rates themselves.
- ccockerhamkc 11y ago
  Yeah? You don't know if your room is a 10X20? You make it sound like this is some crazy task that requires some special ability.

orkoden 11y ago

Flat tax benefits the top incomes more than the bottom ones. But we now know for certain that trickle down just doesn't work and that increasing income for the poorest benefits the economy the most. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income-families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low... Getting rid of exemptions and special rules is a good idea to reduce bureaucracy. You can replace tax exemptions with direct subsidies to make the amount spent on it more transparent. A progressive income tax makes a lot of sense and has lots of configuration levers.

refurb 11y ago
Flat tax benefits the top incomes more than the bottom ones. Not under Paul's proposal...."I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest." Take a look at what tax rate the high-earns are paying. It can often be a small percentage than lower income earners. If the rate was flat at 14.5% for all income (also removing a lot of the current exemptions), I think you'd see high income earner's overall tax rate increase.

qsymmachus 11y ago

And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys. I think this is a point people across the political spectrum agree with. It does not follow, however, that simplifying the tax code would require a regressive flat tax. One could easily imagine a simplified tax code that still has progressive tax brackets. The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%. This would be a massive tax cut for the wealthy, unequivocally – a 25.1 % lower tax rate for the top bracket. The idea that this cut would be offset by closing unnamed loopholes is disingenuous at best. A 14.5% tax rate also conveniently matches the current maximum capital gains tax rate of 15%, which is the effective tax rate the ultra wealthy already pay.

douglasisshiny 11y ago
Also to keep in mind: the IRS has had large cuts in recent years, making them a less effective agency.
refurb 11y ago
It does not follow, however, that simplifying the tax code would require a regressive flat tax. If you allow the first $50K tax-free, it's not really regressive, is it?
jonas21 11y ago
The current maximum long-term capital gains tax rate is 20%, so this would even be a cut on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_Unite...
dnautics 11y ago
> A 14.5% tax rate also conveniently matches the current maximum capital gains tax rate of 15%, which is the effective tax rate the ultra wealthy already pay That's exactly the point. So now the middle class can pay what the wealthy already pay.

acconrad 11y ago

TLDR: Rand Paul pushes for a 14.5% flat tax. And of course when asked about how this would create a larger deficit, he never actually asserts that his flat 14.5% tax across the board would actually balance the budget. But here's the crazy thing: his proposal isn't even a flat-tax policy! He agrees that the first $50,000 for a family of four shouldn't be taxed. That's a progressive tax plan. And it makes sense right - up to a certain amount of income, one makes so little money that need a bit more help than others to get by. Makes sense...but then you could logically assert the converse - that those making so much money need far less help than others to get by, and therefore could be taxed more without affecting their lifestyles. And this is why a progressive tax plan works in the United States - there exists an income level based on the cost of consumer staples, housing, and transportation, that allows one to be a productive member of society. And so the further away from you get from that magic number (or delta of that number), the more that taxes have an effect either on the individual or the community as a whole. A family cannot get by on $1 a year. A billionaire simply does not need a billion dollars. The burden on them is far different - which is why their tax burden should reflect that.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>He agrees that the first $50,000 for a family of four shouldn't be taxed. I live in an expensive part of Chicago. $50k for me has nothing in common with some rural Alabama family making $50k. This is one of the reasons why the flat tax is wrong. It lacks the flexibility and subtlety of a more complex tax system. In a nation this large with so many different wealth levels, a non-progressive tax is just asinine. But it engages conservative low information voters who just want easy cowboy-ish answers to complex problems, especially if they're the ones in he rural south who will benefit from this kind of plan more than northern Democratic urban dwellers.
- rconti 11y ago
  How does our current (theoretically) progressive tax system factor in cost-of-living?
- jessaustin 11y ago

elchief 11y ago

You know what I'd like to see? Fewer total laws in America. The law is so complex in America, that you probably break several laws a day, without knowing. And it costs law makers little to make new ones, and it's a pain to get rid of old ones. I'd love to see a) a huge clean up of out-dated and unnecessary laws. b) then a cap on the total number of laws. If they want to add a new one, they need to repeal an old one. (Allow for very minor growth over time as society becomes more complex).

qsymmachus 11y ago
So what you're saying is the law needs a good refactoring? :)
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  That is precisely what is necessary. Businesses have to continually cut complexity to keep costs down and stay competitive, but for a government, especially the federal government of the richest nation in history, the costs of steadily rising complexity are low, and personal consequences minor. Often times complexity is retained or expanded unnecessarily purely for political reasons, such as representatives of districts refusing to close redundant military bases that the Pentagon doesn't even want for fear of losing their seat in the next election.
  - FlailFast 11y ago
    Very apropos username btw, the law could use a good "rm -rf /" :)
- lisowski 11y ago
  One of the biggest problems in our government was never implementing a way to refactor without grand upheaval. Also they didn't really think about scale very well and campaign funding restrictions. I feel we are in a place right now where special interest is more important than public.
rayiner 11y ago

fredgrott 11y ago

Some Notes: Pull out that IRS booklet you might have hidden if you examine the graph: Over 65% of gov receipts are from income tax and payroll taxes. from SBA there are only 35 million businesses US pop is 307 million(2007 numbers) It is not a simple solution where you say A or B group is not paying enough..flat tax is simplistic band-aid suggested by simpletons

rayiner 11y ago

I love the idea of a flat tax, but flat taxes don't get rid of the complexities of the tax code. The tax code is definitely full of random cruft, but the bread and butter that keeps the IRS and all those tax attorneys busy are a few principled features of the system: taxing net rather than gross income, deducting the value of depreciating capital assets over an amortization schedule, taxing income internationally, taxing capital gains differently than income, not taxing certain intra-familial transfers, etc. Most of the complexity of tax accounting is complexity that's intrinsic to accounting itself. NB: If you want to learn more about the theory of the U.S. tax code, I can't recommend this book enough: http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation-Concepts-Insights/dp/1599419378/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434653971&sr=1-3&keywords=federal+income+taxation http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation-Concepts-Insig...

jessaustin 11y ago
...inter-familial transfers... Did you intend intra-familial? Like inheritance and 529 plans, right?
- rayiner 11y ago
  Yup. :)
driverdan 11y ago
> flat taxes don't get rid of the complexities of the tax code Most flat tax proposals don't allow for exemptions. You pay your taxes off your gross salary, full stop. That would eliminate 99% of the tax code complexity for most individuals.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The median individual return is under $50,000, and more than 80% of filers in that group just take the standard deduction. Not to mention, they get free use of most electronic preparation services.
- big_maybe 11y ago

Animats 11y ago

Oh, another right-wing "flat tax" guy. Somehow, these simplified tax schemes always result in lower taxes for rich people. The tax code is complicated because of lobbying for exceptions. Propose removing some of those exceptions, and the lobbyists will line up in the House and Senate office buildings. (There's a book about that, "Showdown at Gucci Gulch". The cover picture is of lobbyists lining up.)

devy 11y ago

Interestingly, the 14.25% tax rate is not new. Donald Trump proposed in his 2000 presidential bid. At the time, 14.25% one -time wealth tax on personal wealth with $10MM or more would collect $5.7 trillion, which wipe the ENTIRE U.S. debt. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm

jessaustin 11y ago
"One-time" taxes feel a bit like theft, though, don't they? The follow-on effects wouldn't be pretty either, after the billionaires realize how foolish it is to keep their money in USA accounts.
driverdan 11y ago
A flat tax was proposed long before Trump.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Interestingly, the 14.25% tax rate is not new. Paul proposes a 14.5% rate, so, even if novelty or lack thereof was relevant, I'm not sure what the relevance of the novelty of a 14.25% rate would be. > 14.25% one -time wealth tax on personal wealth Yeah, not only is 14.25% different from 14.5%, but a one-time wealth tax is different than an income tax. So, again, what's the relevance?

astraelraen 11y ago

1991 Master Tax Guide versus 2012 Master Tax Guide https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1510099/linked/MasterTax%20Comparison.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1510099/linked/MasterTax...

jws 11y ago

United States tax complexity isn't because of the shape of the tax(income) function. That function is the most important part of tax to most Americans, but the complexity comes from two other places: 1) Some people will game the system for economic advantage. Of the 321M Americans, a certain portion are both extremely clever and amoral. A lot of the code is a response to "They did what‽" 2) Americans tend to have an inbuilt belief that everyone should make it on their own which manifests into the government not "giving" things to people, even if it is to induce a person to accomplish the government's goal. Since it is politically difficult for the government to use payments to change people's behavior it is easier to "not take as much" instead and accomplish the same end with a tax credit. This pushes all sorts of policy and governance into the tax code.¹ ␄ ¹ As an example, I have in the past claimed "historic building renovation" tax credits. I have never renovated a historic building. My state wants to spend $X to preserve historic buildings, but they politically can't give $X to people preserving buildings. So instead, they give transferable tax credits worth $X to the renovators, who probably aren't paying much tax (because they are in the business renovating historic buildings, like that pays) and don't have a use for the credit. If you know the right finance person, you will find there is a quiet market that connects sellers and buyers, so you can buy credits and split the savings with the seller 80/20 if I recall. It's a stupidly complex system that only puts 80% of the state's cost into what it wanted done, but at least they didn't give anyone money to preserve buildings.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut Apparently, Rand Paul thinks he's a dictator, not a Senator: he is proposing, not announcing a tax cut. > The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.” Which is odd, since the proposal is neither fair nor flat. > The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years. Abolishing payroll taxes might be a good idea, though since federal payroll taxes are dedicated levies to support certain programs, one needs to address whether this is abolishing the programs (Social Security and Medicare) or changing their funding source to draw from general revenues. Any evaluation of the proposal to eliminate these taxes is obviously strongly affected by this, which Paul does not address. Eliminating the employer share of payroll taxes (combined with the minimum wage, which limits the minimum payroll cost before payroll taxes) does increase the incentive to hire workers at the low end of the pay scale, and increase the nominal pay level that employers can offer for employees that they would already be fully incentivized to hire at higher levels; eliminating the employee share has no impact on incentive to hire or nominal wages, but does increase after tax income at any nominal wage level. The claim that doing this would raise after tax income by "at least 15%" over any time period is in serious need of some justification; certainly, at the low-end of the scale, that seems to be well within the direct effect, but for employees at the higher-end of the wage scale (after the Social Security cap), it would have a much smaller direct effect; so, what does this number really refer to and how is it justified? > I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. While I like the idea of eliminating distinctions between different sources of income -- particularly capital income subject to reduced capital gains tax, labor income subject to normal income tax plus payroll tax, and miscellaneous income subject to normal income tax but not payroll tax, these sentences also reveal that the proposal is not flat, and also (unless major features related to what is described here exist that are omitted in the description) its also not fair. Its not flat, but a two-tier progressive tax system, because it has a range with a 0% marginal rate, and a range with a 14.5% marginal rate. That's progressive, not flat. Its not fair (with the caveat above) because its a progressive system in which income earned over several year period but realized at a particular point is treated the same as income earned in the period realized. This is a fairness issue that is addressed (poorly, to be sure, and a better mechanism is definitely needed) by the existing distinction between other income (including short-term capital gains) and long-term capital gains. The current system is roughly fair (ignoring the disparate impact of payroll taxes and payroll tax supported programs, just considering income/capital gains taxes) between pure wage earners and those who supplement wages with some long-term capital holdings but who don't have enough long-term capital to structure trades to derive substantial continuous year-over-year income from different batches of long-term holdings, but unfair between both those groups and those who are major capitalists, who are favored over both the other groups. Rand's proposal (assuming it doesn't have major relevant features that are not described) is roughly fair between workers and large-scale capital holders, but unfair between both those groups and small-scale capital holders, who are disfavored compared to either other group. As such, it is most unfavorable to the group moving out of the laborer category into the capitalist category. > The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. Because it is, enormously. > But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. As, for that matter, was Rand's plan. The people he refers to helping him right it are both rich and politically connected, as is Rand himself. So what? Who designed it is a different question than how it distributes tax burden relative to Rand's plan. And while the present system may have been predominantly designed by the "rich and politically connected", and may even excessively favor the rich, Rand's plan is still a tax cut that disproportionately favors the rich. > Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%. The rich won't be able to control legal entities outside US tax jurisdiction that are the actual recipients of income and expend it for the benefit of the owners? Because that's one of the main ways they have of evading tax now -- not being the legal recipient of income. No matter how you structure a tax on income, as long as people can benefit without being the legal recipient of income, they can avoid it. I'll trust claim that you've actually got a plan that eliminates all avenues to evasion when the details of how you plan to do that are subject to scrutiny. Until then, its just puffery. Also, both the mortgage and charity deductions are tools for evading taxes, particularly the charity deduction. But Paul plans on keeping those. He also addresses only deductions, but not credits -- many credits are popularly seen as loopholes used for evasion by the rich, and other credits are distinctly major tools of aiding those on the lower end of the income distribution, particularly EITC. Is he using sloppy language and meaning deductions and credits when he talks about deductions, or does he plan to leave credits alone preserving the "loopholes" that take that form, or has he just omitted an explanation of how he would handle existing credits? The handwaving here that the elimination of "tax loopholes" would somehow shift this from the obvious disproportionate pro-wealthy tax burden shift into something more fair needs some quantitative support. > The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? Well, duh, of course it will. > Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs. While the Tax Foundation is a "non-partisan" right-wing think tank that hasn't ever seen a tax cut for the wealthy that it doesn't like, I'll note that even Rand's claim about the Tax Foundation's findings actually doesn't address deficit/revenue claims at all. > my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts. Over how much time? And, of course, if your only statement of deficit impact one way or the other is "when combined with my package of spending cuts", I then can't even begin to consider the merits of your tax plan without first having bought into your particular package of spending cuts.

Simulacra 11y ago

I like this guy more and more each day. I've grown so weary of the political parties that I'm desperately seeking a really different candidate who can push a more libertarian agenda. I just hope he sticks to his word.

Simulacra 11y ago

I might add as a former lobbyist, everything he said in the article about my former profession is absolutely correct. Every day we analyzed policy to find ways for our clients (corporations) to increase profits, decrease costs, and eliminate taxes. On the other hand we did a lot of good for small and medium sized business. Unfortunately working for small and mid-sized businesses, and average citizens, doesn't pay the bills. I just bought my first house, and I'm starting to save and budget wisely for my family. Anything anyone - be it the President, congress, or otherwise - can do to reduce my tax burden, reduce government involvement in my life, and increase money for my family, is a good thing in my book. Like I said in my last comment: I'm so sick of both parties that I'm less interesting in "Republican" or "Democrat" and more interested in the actual person.

oldpond 11y ago

This is good spin-doctoring. The financial sector always wants to point the finger at taxes. The problem is still the banks. Declare debt amnesty, regulate the banks. Watch the economy soar.

ivan_ah 11y ago

Observation 1: Nice idea, but what remains to be filled in is why people who earn 1M per year will want to give $145,000 to the gov. every year, instead of continuing to use N levels of ownership indirection and contribute-money-to-the-budget-like-right-now-this-year half of this amount? Or maybe even less if Investment gains or holding company? Not sure how income from rent counts. So in terms of "let's cleanup the API" its a great idea, but how do you make the real estate owners and corporates pay all of a sudden? [1] Observation 2: the minimum income before you start to get taxed, is a very interesting number. A half-step towards having a guaranteed minimum income for everyone, is to set this "target number" as the income where taxation starts. Thought experiment. If the tax-exempt portion of your income were increased to $15k, or $20k, how would that affect people's choice of occupation? The Hipsters will definitely be in---they're like "$20k tax-free, I'm like a lunberjack/lumberjess living out in the wilderness who pays no taxes; that's my beer and bike money and I don't need more." (Such an increase in the "personal amount" will make a big hole in the budget, but ask your self this, why are we taxing people who make $14k per year?) __________________ [1] http://www.blue-route.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/3-individual-and-corporate-income-taxes-as-share-of-total-federal-revenue-1934-to-2015-national-priorities-project.png http://www.blue-route.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/3-...

ende 11y ago

I say we axe income tax completely. Two reasons: 1) even a progressive income tax is highly regressive when one considers that the wealthy mostly don't even earn employment income and therefore don't pay tax on it, and 2) taxation on income is the source of most discontent with redistributive policies. I propose a multi-layered tax code operating in coordination at each level of government. 1) Land Value Tax collected by local governments, with land valuations determined at the state level and the revenue redistributed as Universal Basic Income by the Federal government (your SSN becomes your UBI account number). Local governments may in turn add a percentage to the LVT to replace property tax revenues. Minor recipients of UBI (below age of 18) receive their income as a school voucher. The LVT replaces income and payroll taxes as the majority of aggregate national tax revenue, and the UBI replaces SS, EITC, and a host of other safety net programs. 2) a Progressive VAT to be collected by the states with Federal revenue sharing. This becomes the second largest source of tax revenue and funds the majority of state functions, with the Congress taxing a portion of state VAT revenues to fund the Federal government. Most domestic spending programs would be devolved to the states to fund and manage directly rather than redistribute as block grants. The VAT would be progressive in that it would primarily target non-essentials (not food, for example). 3) the rest of Federal revenue sources would come from taxing financial instruments (capital gains, etc), as well as its traditional sources like corporate tax, tariffs, duties, etc. It would also have the option of increasing its share of the VAT. The Federal budget would be significantly smaller than it is today but would be free of the large domestic spending programs (which it would still regulate), as well as from pork barrelling which would instead never leave state borders to begin with. Federal spending would instead focus on interstate and international commerce, defense, national initiatives (nasa, nih, etc). So yea, just a simple adjustment ;)