3 ms·

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.

by 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.

by criley2 11y ago

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.