Posted by Tina
It’s not hard to find someone in America today who isn’t painfully aware of an imbalance with respect to personal liberty and big government. Nor is it hard to find someone that hasn’t experienced hard times throughout the past eight years. The rich are getting richer and the poor have been joined in misery by many from the middle class. Recovery has not been forthcoming and new impositions have been applied to crush our prosperity and liberties. I found out today the health insurance premium for my employees will go up by 16.55% in 2016. It’s very clear…we need a new direction for our lives and our economy. Ted Cruz has a plan to give us blessed relief and a brand new start.
Let’s begin with wisdom from the foundation:
“Good constitutions are formed upon a comparison of the liberty of the individual with the strength of government: If the tone of either be too high, the other will be weakened too much. It is the happiest possible mode of conciliating these objects, to institute one branch peculiarly endowed with sensibility, another with knowledge and firmness. Through the opposition and mutual control of these bodies, the government will reach, in its regular operations, the perfect balance between liberty and power. – Alexander Hamilton 1788 – speech to the New York Ratifying Convention
The Simple Flat Tax is a plan designed to simplify the tax code, downsize the IRS, stimulate real growth in the economy, encourage growth in blue collar industries, and create higher paying middle class jobs. As if that isn’t enough it would also reduce tax filing to a post card. Under the plan the rich would get richer by investing and earning more but they would also pay tax on all of it. The middle class would get richer with better jobs, better pay, and opportunities for retirement savings. The working poor would have increased tax benefits that would lower their tax burden and put more of what they earn in their pockets. This is a plan that would right the imbalance and restore liberty.
Features of individual tax:
Under the Cruz plan the current tax code would be scrapped. A flat 10% tax would apply on all forms of individual income: wages, profits, capital gains, dividends, rents, interest. The Child Tax Credit would remain and the Earned Income Tax Credit would be increased by 20%. These reforms are intended to favor poor and middle class families. A standard deduction of $10,000for singles ($20,000 for couples filing jointly) and a $4,000 personal exemption would apply meaning the first $36,000, for a family of four,would be exempt from all taxes. Payroll taxes would be erased. Social Security and Medicare would be financed in full with no deficits and provide a Universal Savings Account of $25,000 a year for all working people, which could be withdrawn at any time for any purpose, with taxes deferred, as in an IRA. The plan would also abolish the death tax and the alternative minimum tax. Each worker would choose a personal savings and investment account to finance future Social Security benefits.
Features of the corporate tax
Corporate income taxes would be scrapped and replaced with a 16% business flat tax. The rate would apply to gross receipts from sales of goods and services, minus purchases from other businesses. The cost of equipment and all other capital expenditures would be expensed immediately. These reforms will promote investment in worker productivity which leads to rising wages and good jobs in heavy industry, mining, energy, farming, ranching and manufacturing. Corporate welfare would end as would special interest deductions and credits…and crony capitalism! Taxes from business under this plan is projected to account for 71% of all federal revenue. In 2010 the corporate tax accounted for just 9% of revenue flowing to the federal government.
A more dynamic and growing economy that offers good jobs would be a welcome change. The Tax Foundation estimates that under this plan 5 million new jobs would be created and wages would increase by 12.2%. After-tax income for all workers would increase 21.3% on average with the bottom 20% of workers seeing income gains of 15.3% on average. Real economic growth over the next decade would increase by nearly 14%.
People often fear change and this plan represents big changes. If it fails we will adjust, after all we already know how to do it the progressive way. But if it works, and history tells us it will, we will experience growth and prosperity like we haven’t seen in years. (Please refer to the link above for verification of rates and proposals…I’ve been know to err)
This plan is something to consider and discuss as we enter the campaign season…let’s talk.
Just think of all of the IRS agents Cruz’s tax plan would put outta work! They’d have to go find real jobs instead of being insulated by goofernment.
Not gonna comment on the percentages, but getting rid of an IRS that has become an enforcement arm of the Demwit party and a Clean-Up Squad for Demwit shenanigans makes Cruz’s plan attractive all by itself.
J., I have to agree. Ridding ourselves of a body that so easily became politicized to harass and manipulate the participation of political opponents and journalists, a body that has been given the power to indiscriminately seize bank accounts (happened to a friend of mine) without cause or due process, and a body that has the power to impose heavy fines even for an unintended error would be a welcome outcome. Freedom from tax preparation would be a welcome outcome.
Someone suggested reassigning the IRS workers to being border guards on our southern border. I’d also recommend assigning those, not physically able to work on the border, to work on cleaning up the VA mess and backlog.
Good idea Peggy. From what I’ve read they may already be armed, LOL, so border security would be a good fit.
Not sure I’d want them anywhere near our vets…bedpans maybe, but that’s all.
(Caveat: There are probably some very good people at the IRS. I spoke to one once and he was very helpful and polite)
Peggy, that’s a great thought! Our poor vets really have been shafted over and over by the VA. Look at those two VA women who used a moving allowance to loot about $400,000 in VA money. And the VA itself, they were ordered to seek out and compensate soldiers used in mustard gas experiments. Out of 2000 known to be alive, they only located 400 and many of them have been fighting with the VA for decades for their benefits that have been repeatedly rejected! Yet, Congress ordered them to find them and pay them!
While some of these proposals, such as doubling the EITC, make sense, most of this represents a huge giveaway to the super-rich.
The dreaded “death tax” is only paid by 0.2% of Americans. It only applies to an estate’s value after $5 million. Yeah, Cruz is really looking out for the average American there. There is no evidence that eliminating this tax on inherited wealth would help the economy in any way. And yet Republicans have thoroughly convinced their base that this tax affects them (or might some day).
In addition, the Founding Fathers explicitly favored the estate tax on the grounds of curbing inherited wealth, which they saw as a danger to democracy. They were right–Cruz’ position here isn’t based on doing what’s right for average Americans, since most of them won’t ever pay the estate tax. Lots of his donors will, though.
Lowering the capital gains tax will also do nothing to help most Americans. Again, this is something that effectively only helps the rich pay lower taxes. There’s no evidence that lowering capital gains will help the economy–Reagan actually raised the capital gains tax, to a level much higher than it is today. (To Cruz’ credit, at least he thinks the capital gains tax shouldn’t be LOWER than income tax, as it has been for many years–but lowering it to 10% is absurd.)(
Chris only a liberal would think in such terms.
It can’t be a “giveaway” when the money you are talking about doesn’t belong to government (the public). Property rights. Property rights! PROPERTY RIGHTS!! Ever heard of them?
Death tax? Once again, the assets DO NOT belong to the public or the government. Property rights! The death tax harms everyone It hurts small business owners and the people who work for them. Ranchers, farmers, and entrepreneurs:
>blockquote>So high is the death tax that a large portion of heirs to small companies cannot afford to pay it after the business founder dies, and see themselves forced to sell to giant corporations — which have no personal ties to the communities of their new acquisitions, and thus no incentive to commit to local institutions.
“There is no evidence that eliminating this tax on inherited wealth would help the economy in any way.”
That’s just absurd! In the hands of those who produced the wealth it will be invested in local and broader communities. In the hands of government it is wasted, it is spent on the bureaucracy that wouldn’t be necessary except for the enormous size of government. Even that portion that goes to “good causes” is managed poorly leaving us in a state of horrendous debt as a nation. The wealth tax is confiscation for redistribution clear and simple. It’s not public money.
Lowering capital gains results in greater investment in the private sector economy and the personal nest eggs of seniors and future seniors. The much maligned investor class provides the fuel for our economy. They invest into businesses in the same way you might put your money into a savings account. When you put money in a savings account you basically tell the bank they can use your money. You are given interest as compensation. Investment in a pension plan is the same. That money is invested in business and you are guaranteed a return on the investment in the future. These private sector investments are where good paying jobs are created. These private sector investments are responsible for middle class growth.
Chris you have demonstrated an incredibly ignorant understanding of how the economy works, jobs are created, and individual wealth (middle class) is built. All you “understand” is the progressive (Marxist) ideal of redistribution. Every single one of your arguments is about big government and redistribution. Your arguments are not based on what works but on what works according to the old Marxist slogan, “From each according to his means to each according to his need.”
This is America, dangit! And I want my country back. America has always been the land of opportunity because it WAS NOT Marxist…but free!
According to projections business would go from paying 9% of the federal budget to 70% and its not good enough for Chris. Incredible!
The business contribution on the Cruz plan is based on productivity and that’s gotta be better for the American worker!
Progressive tax policy is based on redistribution…we’ve been living that system for seven long years: 1. Unemployment remains high and most new jobs are part time, 2. The middle class has been decimated, 3. College grads can’t find work in their fields, 4. Unemployment for blacks is horrendous, 5. Those living in poverty has grown, 6. The economy remains sluggish, 7. QE by the fed has created a market based on phony money rather than real growth in many sectors, 8. Bubbles are growing setting us up for another painful crash.
Americans need another direction…one that’s AMERICAN!
Re Tina : “Chris only a liberal would think in such terms.”
Precisely. Chris believes what his left wing brainwashers have drilled into him — that the government has a right and obligation to confiscate wealth.
Chris would do well to read Thomas Sowell, Niall Ferguson and Friedrich Hayek. If reading is too much of a chore for Chris, he could rent or buy the documentary adaptations of Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw’s book “Commanding Heights : The Battle For The World Economy” and Niall Fergusonn’s “The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World” and “Civilization : The West and the Rest.”
But he won’t, Tina. Chris is content with his tightly closed mind. No amount of reason, reality, `nor experience can crack that nut. “The science is settled.”
I recall (but cannot quote) how ignorant and absurd his comments about banking and how loans are made. It was so unbelievably ridiculous my jaw dropped.
You are literally just screaming buzzwords at me at this point, and engaging with precisely none of my arguments.
Are you saying that the Founding Fathers didn’t understand property rights? They saw no contradiction between respecting property rights and taxing inherited largesse, and neither do I. If that makes me a Marxist, then so were they.
But tell me again how I’m the one who doesn’t understand our nation’s history.
As for your link, it provided zero stats, just anecdotes. The fact remains that the vast, VAST majority of small business owners will never be faced with the estate tax. And no one has been “forced” to sell their business because of it. To borrow a phrase from Dewey, that link is “pure propaganda.”
“Lowering capital gains results in greater investment in the private sector economy”
Prove it. Prove it with history, not theory. Why did the economy grow when Reagan raised capital gains? Why did it shrink when Bush lowered them?
By the way Tina, if one really seeks to kill off what is left of the family farm, the death tax is an effective way to do it.
Cruz’s flat tax approach would essentially kill 73,954 pages of tax code (I would challenge Chris to read just 1% of that insanely bloated code and make sense of it.) and serve to eliminate most of the $2.8 billion IRS budget.
$2.8 billion is not much in terms of the $8 TRILLION in debt racked up during Obama’s tenure as president (~ 70% increase and in 2014 measured a whopping 103.2% of the GDP!). But you have to start somewhere, and just think of the billions that would be saved by businesses by not needing to hire entire departments of tax analysts and lawyers or shop tax handling out.
Moreover, what the left does not understand is that BUSINESSES DO NOT PAY TAXES, THEY COLLECT THEM, BY PROXY, FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
The cost of doing business is passed on to the consumer, and that includes taxes. Ignoramuses like Chris simply cannot grasp this basic economic fact. They refuse to. It is a giant blind spot. When the lunatic left screams, “Tax the corporations!” they are actually screaming “Tax me!”
Idiots.
Addendum : All three documentaries mentioned above “Commanding Heights : The Battle For The World Economy”, “The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World” and “Civilization : The West and the Rest.” are available on YouTube. The video may be poor, but they are certainly worth listening to. I own all three on DVD and have watched them many times. They are still available on Amazon. All three have excellent production values and are very informative.
Just realized that Amazon is asking for a ridiculously high price for “Commanding Heights”. It can also be found on eBay for the best prices or Barnes and Noble for a reasonable price.
I have to say I’m in awe that people here are seriously considering abolishing the IRS. What is the alternative? How would taxes be collected without it?
“I have to say I’m in awe that people here are seriously considering abolishing the IRS.”
Well, there goes Chris again, putting words into people’s mouths and then making snotty remarks about something that has not been said. Sheesh, that is annoying, but then Chris lives to annoy. It is his raison d’être.
No one I see here, and certainly not I, has suggested that the IRS be abolished, you dolt, but the budget and the face of the IRS would certainly change given a flat tax and the abolition of 99.999% of the 73,954 pages of tax code. Do you think that ANY ONE PERSON at the IRS knows all of those 73,954 pages? A bloated and ridiculous tax code = a bloated and ridiculous IRS. No wonder the IRS is always demanding more money for their budget.
****
Re: “Lowering capital gains results in greater investment in the private sector economy”
Prove it. Prove it with history, not theory. Why did the economy grow when Reagan raised capital gains? Why did it shrink when Bush lowered them?
****
Good Lord! Why? Because, of course, there were (and are) other factors involved besides capital gains tax. Why Chris such a simpleton who who always demands direct cause and effect “proof” for complex issues is anyone’s guess. Does Chris EVER thoughtfully examine an issue in depth? Does he ever consider that there are other factors at play? No, Chris is like a little kid whining. “You promised!” except here it is “You prove it!”
Chris gets it dead wrong, as usual, he cherry picks his data, as usual, he does not tell the whole story and conveniently commits a lie by omission, as usual. I am beginning to think Chris is a habitual liar, truth is completely foreign to him, it completely evades him, and he ignores it by turning a perpetual blind eye like all brainwashed leftists who goosestep to their bankrupt ideology and intellectual dead end.
“In 1981, he [Reagan] made a cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income which reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20 percent — its lowest level since the Hoover administration.
“Several years later, after an epic political battle over the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Reagan compromised on the capital gains tax for the good of overall reform and allowed rates to be set at the same level as the rates on ordinary income, with both topping out at 28 percent. Reagan didn’t relish raising the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent, but was willing to compromise on taxing capital gains as ordinary income since overall rates were being dramatically reduced for Americans.”
On capital gains, Obama is no Reagan
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/231728-on-capital-gains-obama-is-no-reagan
“It [the capital gains tax] is defended as critical to economic growth and prosperity, on the theory that without it money will not be invested. But the empirical data to back that up is lacking, to say the least. Over the last 30 years, the economy and the stock market has tended to do better when the capital gains rate was high.
“THAT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION OF COURSE. (emphasis mine) But if the data went the other way you can be sure supporters of low capital gains rates would be citing it.”
Tax Reform Might Start With a Look Back to ’86
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/business/a-starting-point-for-tax-reform-what-reagan-did.html?_r=0
The fact remains that confiscated wealth is wealth that does not get reinvested into the economy. It is spent by government and squandered by government. Tina is absolutely correct to assert, “Lowering capital gains results in greater investment in the private sector economy and the personal nest eggs of seniors and future seniors.” If the perfectly obvious positive of that assertion is washed out by other economic factors, then the perfectly reasonable theoretical benefits of lowering capital gains taxes are obscured.
That Chris cannot see the basic, simple, straightforward economic truth in what Tina asserts is a testament to the people who have brainwashed him. He seems to think that the money magically goes into some parallel universe, unavailable for investment. I cannot help but wonder that, in those historical times when capital gains taxes were higher and the economy and the stock market fared a bit better, how much better those times would have been with lower capital gains tax. That is a legitimate ponder, as opposed to Chris’ juvenile “prove it” demand.
As for Bush, clearly the economic downturn was more severe that just a reduction in capital gains taxes alone could remedy. Is that so hard to understand? Chris might have been able to figure that out for himself if he were not so driven by his inflexible crackpot ideology. In fact, that reduction in capital gains ultimately might have even helped a bit and made the downturn a bit less worse.
Lastly, on what theory does Chris expect an increase in capital gains tax to improve the economy? What proof does Chris have that increasing capital gains tax is a boon to the economy? What proof do YOU have, Chris?
(That was rhetorical, Chris is a blowhard who has nothing more than a lot of wind.)
Pie, please read the first two comments in which both J and Tina clearly advocating “getting rid of” the IRS. I did not make that up. Cruz himself has also suggested abolishing the IRS.
Your objections to my questions about the capital gains rates are fair–they were overly simplistic and misleading questions, and I regretted them after I posted them.
You are of course right that the fact that high capital gains rates have correlated with a better economy doesn’t prove causation. But taken alongside the fact that we’ve also had economic progress in times when tax rates in general on the rich were much higher than they are now, I find it unconvincing that lowering these rates has much of an effect on the economy. The theory I subscribe to is often referred to as “middle out” economics–economic activity is driven by middle class spending, not by tax breaks for millionaires.
Chris tosses me a bone. How unusual for this ideologue.
“I find it unconvincing that lowering these rates has much of an effect on the economy.”
Well, of course you do, that flys in the face of your left-wing prejudices.
Get the three videos I recommended and get a real education.
Chris: ” taken alongside the fact that we’ve also had economic progress in times when tax rates in general on the rich were much higher than they are now, I find it unconvincing ”
Sometimes I wonder if you even read what we’ve written on economics, growth, and creation of jobs. It’s not like you haven’t had multiple times to get this.
Very shallow thinking determines the belief system on the left:
The war years were not years of prosperity for Americans. Almost all of their labors went to the war effort (sacrfice) and they were personally living with the bare minimum. Look at the pictures…they’re all skinny as he77 with few exceptions. After the war their labors went to rebuilding their lives on a budget and the wealth rebuilt Europe.
Eisenhower on tax rates:
Obviously his idea, a balanced budget and an end to deficit spending never came.
Whatever prosperity the middle class experienced in the fifties came from their dedication to hard work and frugality. They did literally bootstrap their way up the ladder after years of doing without (Depression/War) by saving and living simply.
Kennedy inherited a recession and he chose to lower rates to get the economy moving again.
It’s interesting that we find ourselves in a similar situation today with the dollar devalued, inflation, QE and low interest rates. (They’re considering negative rates now). The recession ended but the lousy economy persists. (We need new policy)
Back to the shallow thinking:
The Clinton years would have been a disaster except for two important things that happened: 1. Hillarycare was defeated resoundingly, and 2. The American people put Newt Gingrich and the republicans in power in the House. Clinton worked with them to cut taxes and reform welfare. He declared the era of big government over. The boom that followed resulted from the tax cuts and stood on the shoulders of the Reagan boon. Cutting taxes, especially those that encourage investment in the economy, work and they work for everyone. A rising tide lifts all boats is not just a cute phrase…it is descriptive of exactly what happens.
Chris you also wrote: “The theory I subscribe to is often referred to as “middle out” economics–economic activity is driven by middle class spending, not by tax breaks for millionaires.”
Your problem is you don’t see they go hand in hand!
Almost half of Americans aged 25-54 are NOT working. It’s tough to spend when you don’t have a job. Many of those who have jobs are working part time, some 2 or 3 jobs. It’s hard to spend when what you earn barely pays the rent, food, and utilities. Those with full time jobs wonder when the next shoe will drop and they’ll lose their jobs. Companies are laying off workers; there is no confidence. We are not spending.
The wealthy have to do something with their money. When taxes are high they tend to shelter their wealth and tighten their money belts. When tax rates are reasonable and competitive they invest, they become productive, and they create a growing economy and jobs. THAT’S WHERE GOOD PAYING MIDDLE CLASS JOBS COME IN…and that’s when the middle class can spend, proving your theory works when given a chance to work.
Forbes:
Chris I pray you have the opportunity to experience how supply side economics leads to middle class spending, middle class investment, and jobs and opportunity for the poor as well, particularly poor blacks:
If black america did that well you know white America did too. Reagan didn’t just cut tax rates…he inspired people to follow their dreams, to take a chance, to believe in themselves.
Investment by everyone caused an American Dream like we’d never seen. People all around the world were inspired. Chris I urge you to learn some history written by people who are not left wing radicals. The radical left despised Reagan for his success and his ability to relate to people…he had to be destroyed.
Oh boy, now I sound like I’m begging you to help save your future. You either will or you won’t.
“Whether taxation should extend only to property or only to income, are points on which opinions have not been uniform. I am inclined to think that both should not be taxed.” – John Jay
Chris wants history. Great! It will be a little long but here’s some history with quotes from the founders.
Tax History and the Tax Code:
The founders had many discussion about taxation. Taxation was at the heart of their dispute with the King of England. So it’s not unusual that “death taxes” would have come up in their discussions. General speaking the founders were against taxation on the citizenry. Try this:
SUPPOERTING QUOTE: I am a tariff man, standing on a tariff platform. – William Mc Kinley
SUPPORTING QUOTES: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” – John Marshall
“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” – Thomas Paine
“This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson
“What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue.” – Thomas Paine
Back to Tax History and the Tax Code:
The progressive movement found it’s legs in the New Deal era which marked the birth of confiscatory death tax schemes and the ideal of redistribution. Even as this ideal creeped into our national consciousness the roots of our founders remained strong:
“As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
Our modern government wants death taxes because they have forgotten or turned away from the principles of our founding. Property rights extend to what a person accumulates in his lifetime and extends to his right to decide how his inheritance will be used.
I’ll address other points in another comment.
Tina, none of your quotes have anything to do with the estate tax. Were you unable to find any quotes from the Founders specifically referring to an estate tax? I find that strange; they are easy to find.
Here’s what Ben Franklin said:
“In a letter to Robert Morris in 1783, Franklin wrote about the right of the public to regulate property passing to heirs: “All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.”
Basic property necessary for man to live should be left alone, Franklin wrote. But he continued that “all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.”
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/jan/21/jay-hottinger/rep-jay-hottingers-assessment-founding-father-unfo/
Adam Smith, the father of the free market:
“A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural….There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.”
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm
Thomas Paine even suggested an inheritance tax on the wealthy to fund a basic universal income for the poor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
Did these men just not understand property rights, Tina?
Pie,
Your family farm statement is pure B.S. My grandfather died a few years ago leaving my family over 8,000 acres. There was no tax penalty, because we had the foresight to set up a family trust. There was NO death tax so long as we followed the rules of the trust for about 10 years. Our land is now free of any tax penalties.
Good for you and your family Pete! I’m glad to hear your family had the foresight to take advantage of what our government set up (the loophole) so the wealthy could avoid the death tax. You must have had a good lawyer.
I hate to tell you this but progressives would frown on your families wise course of action. They believe your family should just turn over a big bite (some say ALL) of your parents hard earned nest egg. Many of those who hold this view also have Family trusts…and setup foundations as the Clinton’s have. The Cinton’s live tax free on their foundations wealth.
We can always count on politicians to give themselves and their crony’s an out when they write tax law. Its one reason the tax code is so long and complex:
This plan, or another plan like it, would give Americans a desperately needed fresh start.
No Pete, my statements are not total B.S. you insulting ignoramus.
http://www.fb.org/newsroom/news_article/267/
Tina, I think I have finally made up my mind who to support and vote for in the primary. Thanks for the help with this blog post about Ted Cruz’ tax plan.
You’re welcome Pie.
I’m whittling down my own list fairly quickly. I want to see the next debate with FOX Business News people doing the questioning. I hope it’s as informative as I expect it will be. Cruz is right there in the top tier for me.
Chris I addressed every one of your arguments. Perhaps the “buzzwords” you complained about were confusing to you but looking back I believe I used very few words that could be considered “buzz”
As Pie pointed out there are family farms being swallowed up by giant corporations all across America because the “wealth” that is the family farm, when inherited, is taxed…and yes the farms are worth that much…the land, the house, the outbuildings and silos, the equipment, even the current crop.
A small manufacturing company would fall in the same category, as would a small chain of retail stores. These people are not the Al Gores or Ted Kennedy’s of the world. They are hard working local people who provide jobs and participate in local communities and they would like their kids o have a chance to continue in their businesses. I met a woman who, along with her brother and sister, had to sell the family farm and then borrow to pay the remainder of the estate tax. They had to second mortgage their own homes to pay the tax. That’s not right. It’s also not right that the government was responsible for them losing what their parents intended would be their inheritance. Our (formerly) vast middle class was made up of such people. Every American should have the freedom to build his nest egg and then do what he wishes with it as he passes on…including to his children. Inheritance at this level is a bootstrap assist for middle aged people to fortify their retirement or start a new business. In that we we grow the number of well off, middle-class Americans. That translates to a strong America.
National Center for Policy Analysis – 2014:
The Hill sites the history of Reagan on capital gains Tax rates:
I urge you to read the rest of the article at The Hill.
WSJ, “The Bush Economy”:
The rest of the article explains why Tea Party conservatives are angry with Bush and the old line GOP.
One problem we face today that hasn’t been true in the past and that is emerging markets in an international economy. We must be competitive.
Democrats like taxation that kills investment, growth and opportunity. They like taxes that allow government to grow. In the process they kill the middle class and good paying jobs. We can’t endure too many more years of this.
I honestly don’t get how you could not see we are not just talking about small business owners. No, we are talking about your future as well. How long do you think this nation can continue to support your wages and benefits with a shrinking middle class?
I don’t expect you to listen to me or trust me. I told you once not to believe a word I say. What I do wish you would do is investigate and think. This stuff is very basic and filled with common sense.
Pie’s list of reading materials and video are excellent. I highly recommend them.
Here’s something that might also be of interest:
Forbes Economic Growth Not redistribution Most Benefits the Poor Working People of the Middle Class”:
Chris stop worrying about the rich and start worrying about the middle class. the rich will always have money. Confiscatory taxes on capital gains affect the middle class in many ways, good jobs and opportunity to invest in a retirement nest egg are two of the ways. Taxation that pulls the rug out from under the families that build small businesses harm the people that work for those businesses as well as the inheritors.
You might also be interested in this: NewsMax, “Reagan Succeeded Where Obama Has Not”
Cruz has said we could abolish the IRS but he clarified later that it would be abolished “as we know it.” We would still need a much smaller and less intrusive IRS to collect the revenue.
Chris I doubt if Ben Franklin had the enormous welfare state in mind when he wrote, “whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.”
In his day the “welfare of the public” had to do with defense of the nation. The record shows taxes were imposed for such purposes and then removed, stopped…ENDED.
Franklin would be appalled by the size of our welfare state, the debt and the numbers of able bodies people living off their fellow citizens.
Franklin on industry: “Lose no time. — Be always employed in something useful. — Cut off all unnecessary actions.
Franklin on work: “The most trifling actions that affect a man’s credit are to be regarded. The sound of your hammer at five in the morning, or at nine at night, heard by a creditor, makes him easy six months longer but if he sees you at the billiard-table, or hears your voice at a tavern, when you should be at work, he sends for his money the next day.”
Franklin on idleness: f you were a servant, would you not be ashamed that a good master should catch you idle Are you then your own master Be ashamed to catch yourself idle, when there is much to be done for yourself, your family, your relations, and your country
Franklin on money: ““Rather go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt.”
Steven Forde at Heritage had this to say about Franklin:
Regarding Adam Smith (your link) If we read on we see this is a discussion about inheritance and caring for the land:
This sounds more like a moral obligation to care for the land rather than an obligation to dispose of it or have it taxed, or give the government a share.
In the early days of our nation wealth was acquired by the more industrious among the population. This is the natural state of man. Their wealth wasn’t acquired due to good fortune as this author suggests. They had to apply themselves, live frugally, save, and invest to acquire the wealth they had. The founders also risked their lives, their families lives, and their fortunes to found this nation.
As our nation opened up it became possible for any person to work and grow rich beyond his wildest dreams. Most others were content to live a more modest life. it’s always been so. Anything any person acquires is his property. It’s absurd to think the founders would support a death tax to fund the idleness of the capable.
The agrarian philosophy that the land belongs to no one isn’t in conflict with property rights. Our nation has set aside a lot of common land in parks and national forests that all can enjoy. We have created schools to ensure every citizen has a chance to achieve and acquire. The decision to pass on that which you have acquired should remain with the individual. We have many avenues of taxation, unfortunately, this one is absurd.
Understanding history requires more than looking at a few facts or quotes. To truly understand we must get into the experiences and impressions, the values and the tendencies of those who lived in another time. We must consider the context.
Pie,
Name a millionaire or billionaire that will lose or has lost half their fortune to the estate tax. Hey, I’ll be the first to admit I’ve been wrong before. If a person has an estate worth over ~$5m (single) ~$10m (couple) and think they will lose half their worth to the estate tax they either lied or they are a moron. And your name calling is extremely rude.
Thanks for the question, Pete. It led me to an interesting and informative article on the Estate tax:
Tax Policy Center:
Pete you have expressed concern that our government might “take” a few family farms by eminent domain for the pipeline. But you seem adamant that the seizing after death a portion of the assets for “less than fifty” (49? )smaller businesses and farms is fair:
What’s the difference?
It has to be noted that property values plummeted after the housing bubble burst and haven’t fully recovered in most of America yet. Fewer people might qualify to pay the tax as a result but they have also lost value due to a very bad non-recovery from that crash and a flailing economy. In California poor water management has also harmed farmers greatly. See here, here, here, and here.
Our governments have become oppressive and tyrannical. That’s the basis for the frustration and anger
“What’s the difference?”
The difference is just as you described: Pete was talking about the government seizing entire estates to build the pipeline, and you cited evidence showing only that millionaires with giant estates would have to pay estate taxes on them–not that they would lose them or even half the value of them, as you and Pie claimed.
Once again, this tax affects no one but the one percent, and making it a central part of ones economic platform shows that one’s priorities are out of whack.
what about the retirees ,havent heard what is max income a retired couple can recieve that is tax free ,and also how will medicare be affected premium and coverage as starters
dorvil that’s a very good question.
Assuming the Congress would go along with this plan as is, retirees (married couple) would pay 10% tax on every dollar of income from investments above $24,000. I’m not a professional tax person or accountant, just a business owner and retiree, so I could be reading it wrong.
Currently there are many different types of investments with different rules. I don’t know if any of these will have grandfather clauses applied to them r by their nature be exempt.
It’s doubtful that any plan that’s suggested by any candidate would survive without congressional tweeking.
You might want to contact his office directly with that question.