neptunechimney wrote: Just a bunch of people who care about their country.
Uh oh. Hope you're wrong about that one. Their patron saint Ayn Rand doesn't approve of doing things for "love of country" only for "love of self". Or possibley "love of money".
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
Current tax brackets are 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35%. If you get rid of all deductions and credits (all "loopholes"), they propose three tax brackets of 8, 14, 23%.
Keeping some major deductions like home mortage and charity, and some credits like the child credit and earned income credit, plus paying down the deficit by $80 billion, they suggest tax brackets of 12, 22, 28%. Capital gains would be taxed the same as regular income.
I think there are some good suggestions there. I just don't see a Democratic president going far enough with it though.
Mack’s Penny Plan may be imbalanced from my perspective, lacking in the revenue-raising component endorsed by the bipartisan Gang of Six and the Simpson-Bowles commission.
I believe Republicans will have difficulty in the 2012 congressional and presidential elections defending the proposition that the national debt can be significantly paid down from budget cuts alone, or that the wealthier in our society shouldn’t pay more or at least stop taking advantage of tax loopholes to pay less.
But since the “balanced” solution of both increased revenues and spending cuts entitlement reform is supported in virtually every poll by substantial majorities of all voters, including large numbers of Republicans, Democrats need to find a spending cut formula that they can live with.
The Mack Penny Plan seems a good place to start — it is simple, it makes common sense, and with some adjustments protecting the poor and the unemployed, it could be seen as fair even to many of the most liberal Democrats.
And I have to agree....no matter how good a spending cut plan is, if increased revenue isn't part of the formula, the debt will not come down fast enough.
