Rick Perry's new tax plan. Hot off the press!

pineinthegrass wrote: If Rick Perry's tax plan were to hang leprechauns upside down, shake them, and collect the gold coins Viking would think it's the greatest idea ever! :bash

OK, that made no sense. Guess you aren't even giving the plan a real look. This is by far the best plan presented so far. And obama has no plan so what are you voting for? No plan? That's OK just stick with the status quo. We are doing great! :bash

I believe what PIG was saying (sorry Pine) is that you are such a cheerleader for Perry you would think any plan he came up with was the best. You praise him almost like he's the new Messiah. Do you even step back and question anything about Perry or his plan(s)?

Conservation Voice wrote: I believe what PIG was saying (sorry Pine) is that you are such a cheerleader for Perry you would think any plan he came up with was the best. You praise him almost like he's the new Messiah. Do you even step back and question anything about Perry or his plan(s)?

Of course I have. You guys are clueless saying I praise him like the new Messiah. I even backed off him after the debates and looked at Cain and Newt. Cain has no chance in my opinion. I hate his failure of a 999, oops 909, oops, 909 with different options in every city plan, and he is already acting like a politician with his vague answers and he keeps saying that we all misundertood him and he has changed so many stances in just a few months. He is jsut throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. And he has no money to even make it throught the primaries let alone up against Obama's $200- $300 million he will have to spend. It would be a joke!

Newt's mind is a National treasure. He has seen it all and retains it all. Briliant man but he might have too much baggage to get back in it. So they Perry comes out with the energy plan which is EXACTLY what I want and what will help turn this country turn around. And now this tax plan is getting rave reviews and if I drew up a tax plan it is exactly what I think is prefect and will work the best for ALL of Americans.

I know you guys feel left out becausee you have no one to be excited about on the left but that doesn't mean we don't have a few to get excited about.

Looks like Newt is coming out with a similar plan. He announced that it is coming today. Almost the same as Perry's. Glad to see people are finally catching on. That is two candidates going for the flat tax now!

Meanwhile, Club for Growth president Chris Chocola echoed Norquist’s approval of the flat tax proposal, calling the governor’s plan in a statement Tuesday “massively pro-growth.”

“A flat tax like the one proposed by Perry would unleash years of economic growth if it is passed into law. … Perry clearly understands that revitalizing the economy should start with a complete overhaul of a tax code that has nearly choked economic growth to death,” Chocola said, urging fellow conservatives to rally behind Perry’s “bold” plan.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z1bpb75ka2

Just talking about new ideas for our crappy tax system is good no matter who gets the nomination because we all know damn well that if the dems stay in power, so will our broken tax system and worthless IRS.

Sorry Vike,
This one won't come to pass either, even if Perry wins, even if the Republicans keep the House and barely retake the Senate. It would be filibustered for years.

I ran some numbers and compared Rick Perry's 20% flat tax to the tax paid in our current system.

First consider a family of four. Under Perry's plan they can make up to $50K and owe zero tax. Under the current system (2010 numbers, did not include the temporary Make Work Pay credit), they get a refund (up to $7036) if they make under $45K, so the current system is better for under $45K. There is a "donut hole" from $45K to $65K where you can save under Perry's plan (up to $766). From $65K to $116K you save under the current system. Above $116K Perry's plan cuts taxes.

For a single person you currently get a refund (up to $457) if you make under $11K. With Perry, you pay zero up to $12500. The donut hole where you save with Perry is if you make between $11K and $16K. From $16K to $73K you pay less with the current system. Above $73K, Perry's plan cuts taxes.

Looking at IRS stats, about 88% of tax payers make less than $116K. The $45K-$65K donut hole represents about 15% (rough estimate) of tax payers and the $11K-$16K hole represents about 9%. So by rough estimate I'd say Perry's plan is an increase for about 64% of tax payers. Assuming Perry is telling the truth that everyone would still have a choice of paying under the current system, I assume the 64% will choose that option. And by keeping the current system as an option, Perry is not simplifying taxes but is instead making them a bit more complicated.

For seniors, only about 1/3rd of them currently pay any income tax. So Perry's plan of not taxing Social Security benefits doesn't help 2/3rds of seniors. His plan would help seniors who have some investment income since capital gains and dividends would not be taxed. It's hard to estimate how many would be helped. I'd guess about 10% would save something, but I'll leave it to the experts.

For the wealthy they will save a whole lot if they have lots of investment income. Many thousands of millionaires and billionaires whose main income source is from investments currently pay around 15% and would end up owing zero.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan made an effort to keep tax revenue neutral, and it comes close to doing that from the estimates I've seen. Perry's plan makes no attempt to be revenue neutral and will clearly reduce tax revenues by a substantial amount (my guess is hundreds of billions). He needs to let people know what programs he plans to cut to make up for lost revenues, and by how much IMO. Otherwise he's just growing the deficit even more.

pineinthegrass wrote: I ran some numbers and compared Rick Perry's 20% flat tax to the tax paid in our current system.

First consider a family of four. Under Perry's plan they can make up to $50K and owe zero tax. Under the current system (2010 numbers, did not include the temporary Make Work Pay credit), they get a refund (up to $7036) if they make under $45K, so the current system is better for under $45K. There is a "donut hole" from $45K to $65K where you can save under Perry's plan (up to $766). From $65K to $116K you save under the current system. Above $116K Perry's plan cuts taxes.

For a single person you currently get a refund (up to $457) if you make under $11K. With Perry, you pay zero up to $12500. The donut hole where you save with Perry is if you make between $11K and $16K. From $16K to $73K you pay less with the current system. Above $73K, Perry's plan cuts taxes.

Looking at IRS stats, about 88% of tax payers make less than $116K. The $45K-$65K donut hole represents about 15% (rough estimate) of tax payers and the $11K-$16K hole represents about 9%. So by rough estimate I'd say Perry's plan is an increase for about 64% of tax payers. Assuming Perry is telling the truth that everyone would still have a choice of paying under the current system, I assume the 64% will choose that option. And by keeping the current system as an option, Perry is not simplifying taxes but is instead making them a bit more complicated.

For seniors, only about 1/3rd of them currently pay any income tax. So Perry's plan of not taxing Social Security benefits doesn't help 2/3rds of seniors. His plan would help seniors who have some investment income since capital gains and dividends would not be taxed. It's hard to estimate how many would be helped. I'd guess about 10% would save something, but I'll leave it to the experts.

For the wealthy they will save a whole lot if they have lots of investment income. Many thousands of millionaires and billionaires whose main income source is from investments currently pay around 15% and would end up owing zero.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan made an effort to keep tax revenue neutral, and it comes close to doing that from the estimates I've seen. Perry's plan makes no attempt to be revenue neutral and will clearly reduce tax revenues by a substantial amount (my guess is hundreds of billions). He needs to let people know what programs he plans to cut to make up for lost revenues, and by how much IMO. Otherwise he's just growing the deficit even more.

Good point. I don't like taxes but right now only 1/3 of Federal spending is actually paid for. I don't think we will be able to grow our way up to 100% paid, no matter who is writing the new tax code. We need to cut back, and candidates don't like to admit that because you don't want to piss off voters.