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

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin ... -proposal/

Here Viking, I'll walk you through one example because this is actually pretty simple.

Let's consider a family of four making $66K.

With current tax law (2010) they get an exemption of $14,600 (4 x $3650). They also get a standard deduction of $11,400. That reduces their $66K adjusted gross income by $26K down to a taxable income of $40,000 which is in the 15% tax bracket.

If you use the tax tables to look up the tax due for a married couple, it comes to $5166. See page 78 here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=2010%201040%20instructions&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irs.gov%2Fpub%2Firs-pdf%2Fi1040gi.pdf&ei=sU-nTtWEDIiKiAK03bTFDQ&usg=AFQjCNG3VnyM8BaRDhMEmRdzUUCIa-2Wjw

They also qualify for a $1000 child tax credit per child which subtracts from tax due. So their final tax bill comes to $3166.

Under Perry's plan they owe .2 x ($66K - $50K) = $3200 which is $34 more.

As you go above $66K, the savings under the current plan become even greater as you stay in the 15% bracket, until you start getting into the 25% tax bracket. At that point Perry's 20% plan starts catching up again until you reach $116K when you start to save more with Perry. It's a bell curve.

Perry was on O'Reilly tonight and good old softball Bill asked him if he had any projection on how much his plan would reduce federal tax revenue. Perry had no clue. It's just embarrassing because everyone is going to ask him about this. Even a neophyte like Cain had some accountants look into his plan to make sure it's revenue neutral. I'm not saying it has to be revenue neutral, but it's clear Perry's plan will reduce revenue by a huge amount when we are $15 trillion in debt. He has to explain this somehow.

He performs the worst in the debates, and he can't fully explain his plan. Not good.

pineinthegrass wrote: Perry was on O'Reilly tonight and good old softball Bill asked him if he had any projection on how much his plan would reduce federal tax revenue. Perry had no clue. It's just embarrassing because everyone is going to ask him about this. Even a neophyte like Cain had some accountants look into his plan to make sure it's revenue neutral. I'm not saying it has to be revenue neutral, but it's clear Perry's plan will reduce revenue by a huge amount when we are $15 trillion in debt. He has to explain this somehow.

He performs the worst in the debates, and he can't fully explain his plan. Not good.

But what Cain said was not true. It is not revenue neutral after he took out one of the 9's and made it 9-9-9. They were talking about that.

The Viking wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: Perry was on O'Reilly tonight and good old softball Bill asked him if he had any projection on how much his plan would reduce federal tax revenue. Perry had no clue. It's just embarrassing because everyone is going to ask him about this. Even a neophyte like Cain had some accountants look into his plan to make sure it's revenue neutral. I'm not saying it has to be revenue neutral, but it's clear Perry's plan will reduce revenue by a huge amount when we are $15 trillion in debt. He has to explain this somehow.

He performs the worst in the debates, and he can't fully explain his plan. Not good.

But what Cain said was not true. It is not revenue neutral after he took out one of the 9's and made it 9-9-9. They were talking about that.

According to the nonpartisian Tax Policy Center's analysis, the original Cain plan was revenue neutral assuming the Bush tax cuts stay in place. Without that, it would collect $300 billion less.

But yes, Cain has since modified his plan and I agree it won't be revenue neutral now. But even with his mods, my guess is that Perry's plan would collect much less. Hopefully the Tax Policy Center looks into it because I'm just guessing.

Their earlier report:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Cain-9-9-9-plan.cfm

The Tax Policy Center estimates that, if fully phased in, the plan would raise about $2.55 trillion of revenues at 2013 levels of income and consumption, virtually the same amount that would be collected if current tax policy were in place that year (that is, if 2011 tax law, other than the payroll tax reduction, were extended). However, the plan would raise about $300 billion less revenue than would be raised by current tax law, under which most 2001-2010 tax cuts would have expired by 2013.

Wow...This new tax plan has really turned things around... Perry has now dropped from 7% to 6% in the polls. And he's still in the single-digits specifically with the teabaggers.

So here are the numbers they have worked out. The economy will actually be $3.5 trillion GREATER than under the current CBO forecast! This is a slam dunk! And I am bot sure why the Dems are fighting to hard to keep the economy going backwards when it looks now like we have a plan that will turn it around. And Perry hasn't spent hardly any money yet on advertising. This will get out there and the interviews and debates will turn things around. I have thousands of friends on FB who are spreading it to thousands more. It is snowballing now.

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/the-re ... l-numbers/

Based on the higher GDP estimates forecast by the dynamic scoring exercise, the Perry proposal will not only lead to an increase in overall economic activity and jobs, but will also lead to higher federal revenues in the long term. In fact, the analysis suggests that revenues could be as much as $406.8 billion higher than under the static model by 2020, and could be as high as 19.5 percent of GDP. The dynamic score of the proposal suggests that lower flatter taxes could generate both more revenue than the current tax code, and significantly more economic growth over time. With increasing demands on the Federal government from growing entitlements, higher pension expenses and interest on the debt, it will be necessary to increase the size of the economy – and the tax base – in order to generate significantly higher revenues.

pineinthegrass wrote: Here Viking, I'll walk you through one example because this is actually pretty simple.

Let's consider a family of four making $66K.

With current tax law (2010) they get an exemption of $14,600 (4 x $3650). They also get a standard deduction of $11,400. That reduces their $66K adjusted gross income by $26K down to a taxable income of $40,000 which is in the 15% tax bracket.

If you use the tax tables to look up the tax due for a married couple, it comes to $5166. See page 78 here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=2010%201040%20instructions&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irs.gov%2Fpub%2Firs-pdf%2Fi1040gi.pdf&ei=sU-nTtWEDIiKiAK03bTFDQ&usg=AFQjCNG3VnyM8BaRDhMEmRdzUUCIa-2Wjw

They also qualify for a $1000 child tax credit per child which subtracts from tax due. So their final tax bill comes to $3166.

Under Perry's plan they owe .2 x ($66K - $50K) = $3200 which is $34 more.

As you go above $66K, the savings under the current plan become even greater as you stay in the 15% bracket, until you start getting into the 25% tax bracket. At that point Perry's 20% plan starts catching up again until you reach $116K when you start to save more with Perry. It's a bell curve.

Got it. Now since I have not filed this way, explain to me that the standard deduction of $11,400 is?