Rick Perry's plan calls for Forbes Flat tax. Great plan!

Rockdoc Franz wrote: If you want a flat tax, then make it so. It matters not where or how the income originates. If it is income, be it from investments, labor, or sale of goods, tax it. How difficult is that?

Did you see the video clip I just posted with Forbes talking about it?

The Viking wrote: OK, watching the video, there might be NO taxes on ANYONE up to $36,000. So that throw raising the taxes on the lower class out the window.

Man you have a short memory.

As we discussed earlier, the lower income currently have refundable credits (like them or not), which give them "refunds" of thousands of dollars. Forbes made no mention of that.

From what Forbes said in that video, you got it right in our discussions earlier. And that still means the flat tax costs the low income and middle class much more!

But let's wait. I think Perry's plan comes out next week. Not that it matters much. I think he's toast already as a serious candidate.

pineinthegrass wrote:

The Viking wrote: OK, watching the video, there might be NO taxes on ANYONE up to $36,000. So that throw raising the taxes on the lower class out the window.

Man you have a short memory.

As we discussed earlier, the lower income currently have refundable credits (like them or not), which give them "refunds" of thousands of dollars. Forbes made no mention of that.

From what Forbes said in that video, you got it right in our discussions earlier. And that still means the flat tax costs the low income and middle class much more!

But let's wait. I think Perry's plan comes out next week. Not that it matters much. I think he's toast already as a serious candidate.

No I just wanted to see you type it again. I wanted to see someone actually say that 0% is a tax INCREASE! They go from 10% or 15% down to 0% and people will still call this an increase! Only in America can anyone complain about 0% taxes. That is proof that we have turned into a welfare nation where we EXPECT the Government to take care of us and give us MORE than we earn.

And most of the shows are still saying it is a 2 man race with Perry and Romney. Cain has no money, 3 people running his campaign in NH. Only in 5 states and said they are working on hiring more. The only 2 with money who can make the long haul are Perry and Romney.

pineinthegrass wrote:

The Viking wrote: OK, watching the video, there might be NO taxes on ANYONE up to $36,000. So that throw raising the taxes on the lower class out the window.

Man you have a short memory.

As we discussed earlier, the lower income currently have refundable credits (like them or not), which give them "refunds" of thousands of dollars. Forbes made no mention of that.

From what Forbes said in that video, you got it right in our discussions earlier. And that still means the flat tax costs the low income and middle class much more!

But let's wait. I think Perry's plan comes out next week. Not that it matters much. I think he's toast already as a serious candidate.

And just out of curiosity, since they are paying NO taxes, what are they getting a refund for? And who pays for it? Doesn't refund imply they paid into something and are getting some of it back? They make 100% of their income, pay 0% taxes and then want a REFUND for their 0%? For what? And we wonder why this nation is so far in debt? I am curious to know how much the government gives in REFUNDS to people who don't pay anything in the first place? Any numbers?

And FOX just added 2 more debates. Cain will get shreaded and Perry will get his plan out there along with his great energy plan and he will get a big bounce again. Even many on FOX who have been against Perry are saying it will be a two man race. Cain screwed up by not thinking his plan through before throwing all his eggs in one basket and now trying to unscramble them and change it.

Personally I think they did it because they back Romney and they know he is much stronger than Perry in debates.

The Viking wrote: And FOX just added 2 more debates. Cain will get shreaded and Perry will get his plan out there along with his great energy plan and he will get a big bounce again. Even many on FOX who have been against Perry are saying it will be a two man race. Cain screwed up by not thinking his plan through before throwing all his eggs in one basket and now trying to unscramble them and change it.

Personally I think they did it because they back Romney and they know he is much stronger than Perry in debates.

There is a reason why he is stronger in debates than Perry....he's light years smarter than Perry.

Perry's plan is no better thought out than Cain's, I think we will see Romney and the other candidates turn it into a liability for Perry, not an asset.

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote: And FOX just added 2 more debates. Cain will get shreaded and Perry will get his plan out there along with his great energy plan and he will get a big bounce again. Even many on FOX who have been against Perry are saying it will be a two man race. Cain screwed up by not thinking his plan through before throwing all his eggs in one basket and now trying to unscramble them and change it.

Personally I think they did it because they back Romney and they know he is much stronger than Perry in debates.

There is a reason why he is stronger in debates than Perry....he's light years smarter than Perry.

Perry's plan is no better thought out than Cain's, I think we will see Romney and the other candidates turn it into a liability for Perry, not an asset.

How do you know his plan isn't better thought out? He hasn't even announced it with the details yet? Do you know something we don't know?

The Viking wrote: And just out of curiosity, since they are paying NO taxes, what are they getting a refund for? And who pays for it? Doesn't refund imply they paid into something and are getting some of it back? They make 100% of their income, pay 0% taxes and then want a REFUND for their 0%? For what? And we wonder why this nation is so far in debt? I am curious to know how much the government gives in REFUNDS to people who don't pay anything in the first place? Any numbers?

Good question, not that I know all the answers. But it seems both parties support refundable credits like the earned income and child tax credits.

The earned income credit is intended as kind of a refund for those who pay into the Social Security and Medicare system but can't afford it. It's said to lift about 6 million people out of poverty at a cost of about $59 billion. But it is full of fraud since all you need is a fake SS number to get it. And once you have the money, how is the government supposed to find you to get it back?

http://www.eitc.irs.gov/central/abouteitc/

The child tax credit costs about $52 billion.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/ctc.cfm

By comparision, a welfare program like food stamps costs about $73 billion. Seems to me the IRS should be in the tax collection business and not in the welfare business. If you are going to receive thousands of dollars it seems you should see a case worker who can at least verify you qualify and that your children actually exist. It's too easy to provide a fake SS number, and if eventually caught, you just change your address and get another one. And the IRS pays back refunds very quickly so they don't really investigate much until after the fact.

But if someone proposes a new tax policy, it will be compared to the current one. And the current policy does include refundable tax credits where people can get money back even if they owe no tax.

pineinthegrass wrote:

The Viking wrote: And just out of curiosity, since they are paying NO taxes, what are they getting a refund for? And who pays for it? Doesn't refund imply they paid into something and are getting some of it back? They make 100% of their income, pay 0% taxes and then want a REFUND for their 0%? For what? And we wonder why this nation is so far in debt? I am curious to know how much the government gives in REFUNDS to people who don't pay anything in the first place? Any numbers?

Good question, not that I know all the answers. But it seems both parties support refundable credits like the earned income and child tax credits.

The earned income credit is intended as kind of a refund for those who pay into the Social Security and Medicare system but can't afford it. It's said to lift about 6 million people out of poverty at a cost of about $59 billion. But it is full of fraud since all you need is a fake SS number to get it. And once you have the money, how is the government supposed to find you to get it back?

http://www.eitc.irs.gov/central/abouteitc/

The child tax credit costs about $52 billion.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/ctc.cfm

By comparision, a welfare program like food stamps costs about $73 billion. Seems to me the IRS should be in the tax collection business and not in the welfare business. If you are going to receive thousands of dollars it seems you should see a case worker who can at least verify you qualify and that your children actually exist. It's too easy to provide a fake SS number, and if eventually caught, you just change your address and get another one. And the IRS pays back refunds very quickly so they don't really investigate much until after the fact.

But if someone proposes a new tax policy, it will be compared to the current one. And the current policy does include refundable tax credits where people can get money back even if they owe no tax.

Tax credits should only be used to until people are down to 0%. NO ONE should get paid a refund for having kids! That is why we have women popping out 8-10 kids! They get all that money each year from tax payers, just for having babies. NO ONE should get a refund check for child credit. For over paying of taxes yes. And based upon the number you just said, that is $520 billion or 1/2 a trillion over the next 10 years. Now the group of 12 can't figure out where to cut $1 trillion. There is half of it!

So you just proved that Perry's plan would cut 1/2 trillion from the deficit in 10 years. Sounds good so far.

The Viking wrote: Tax credits should only be used to until people are down to 0%. NO ONE should get paid a refund for having kids! That is why we have women popping out 8-10 kids! They get all that money each year from tax payers, just for having babies. NO ONE should get a refund check for child credit. For over paying of taxes yes. And based upon the number you just said, that is $520 billion or 1/2 a trillion over the next 10 years. Now the group of 12 can't figure out where to cut $1 trillion. There is half of it!

So you just proved that Perry's plan would cut 1/2 trillion from the deficit in 10 years. Sounds good so far.

Ahh... what plan? Where is it?

The middle class also heavily uses the child tax credit. They generally owe taxes, but reduce the amount due with that credit (it doesn't go below zero). It sounds like you'd keep that? If so, the "savings" would be less. And you'd have to take into consideration the cost to the economy since tax "refunds" to those who owe no tax are spent quickly. Also, if Perry does the same as Forbes, he too would consider the number of children. But it would be a large exemption off the income, not a credit off taxes due.