^^^^
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/marco-rubio-lays-out-ambitious-tax-reform-plan-with-mike-lee/article/2561040#!

The main criticisms seems to focus on short term deficits that it would create until the greater economic growth stimulated by the plan eventually leads to a surplus. Critics say that it could take 10 years. Other criticisms are that (of course) any tax reduction/reform plan automatically benefits the "rich" as they pay a disproportionate amount of the current tax system.

The plan also is very family friendly...removing the marraige tax penalty, estate tax, and providing increased credits and deductions to people raising children.
It should be noted that Rubio does not consider this a final product, but a starting point.

A 35% rate on over $75k would be punishing to the middle class....to eliminate cap gains and estate taxes for the rich. No thank you.

Simplify the tax code and cut rates...make up the difference with a VAT on luxury goods (i.e. not food, energy, rent). I agree I don't want to give that to the govt, but it's part of any practical solution.

Also, I'd eliminate corporate taxes and then tax capital gains at ordinary rates.

As I said... Family friendly. 15% on $150 k for a married couple+ credits and deductions for raising kids.

I'm all for upping taxing on consumption and drastically reducing taxes on production and savings.

Man I can't imagine paying 35% over and above the 75k. People have a poor perception of how little 100-150k is.. It's middle class but you definitely haven't "made it"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rydawg5;1723991 wrote:Man I can't imagine paying 35% over and above the 75k. People have a poor perception of how little 100-150k is.. It's middle class but you definitely haven't "made it"

Exactly. Less punishing for a married couple, but 35% on income over $75k for a single person is brutal, especially if you consider that's a range for college grads with hefty student loans - disposable income or money they'd use to pay off debt is being taxed at close to 50% when you include FICA and state/local taxes. Put another way, it's an extra 7-10% bump over current rates.

But like people keep saying, the middle class is where the money is. And never mind that a good chunk of people making $100-$150k live in major metro areas, where the cost of living can be much higher - that extra 10% is a pretty huge deal to them.

Anyway, I think both the right and left are going to absolutely pummel this plan. It's very difficult to sell/justify the complexity of a tax plan in a few minutes to the average voter. If the press dumps on it - which they will - it's DOA.

I don't disagree it's a tough sell, but I agree with the overall intent which is to quit penalizing families trying to raise children, stimulating economic growth, and giving incentives to save and wealth building.
I would much rather have people working and supporting their own children, rather than people not working and they and their children being supported by the government dole.

Most certainly 35% on $75K hits a lot of single professionals disproportionally hard, but the middle and lower middle class probably won't have to pay that especially if they are married. Rubio proposed the plan as a starting point, and most certainly that aspect would be looked at pretty hard and subject to change. The issue, I think, here is that the intent and goals of the plan are positive, and certainly worth a look. It would be a shame if it were DOA.....but the way this country is nowadays, any proposal, even if it is a worthy, positive proposal, is instantly attacked and destroyed.
Rubio has focused his campaign as moving the country from the obsolete ways of the past and into the 21st century. It's a noble venture that stands in contrast to the gridlock of the past administration.

35% on ANY income level is pretty stupid.

Actually, I neglected the lower half of the rate - the break points aren't $75/$150k because 15% is 10 points lower for a significant chunk of your income, which would help a lot of people....you don't start losing until @ $115/$225k, and the extra $2500 credit pushes that further out to like $150/270k.

So I guess it's a much better plan than I thought, but it's a pretty big tax cut, especially for the rich, and is just going to add to the deficit. Reality is the structural deficit is probably approaching $600B (and growing), so you need more revenues not less.

fish82;1724036 wrote:35% on ANY income level is pretty stupid.

yeah its a fact that 23% flat tax pays for everything the government needs.

gut;1723972 wrote:A 35% rate on over $75k would be punishing to the middle class....to eliminate cap gains and estate taxes for the rich. No thank you.

Simplify the tax code and cut rates...make up the difference with a VAT on luxury goods (i.e. not food, energy, rent). I agree I don't want to give that to the govt, but it's part of any practical solution.

Also, I'd eliminate corporate taxes and then tax capital gains at ordinary rates.

VAT tax is a great idea but imo once this percentage of the vat tax is establish it can never be altered or change. I don't want goverment to have the ability to just raise the vat as they deem needed. The same for state and local goverment VAT tax must remain unchangable once establish on all products and goods. If this is not part of the VAT tax the idea of simplification of business tax will be a nightmare for small business and start up business.

Yeah, there are a few major problems with the VAT:
1) Once the govt gets its hands on that revenue, there's no stopping it. Europe is heading past 21% on average.
2) It's not transparent enough - it's collected at each point in the value chain from businesses. If the consumer saw and paid 21% at the register it would be a very different animal.

Hey Hillard? report card time:

Can't run your own Foundation 31 million dollar mistake "we made a mistake" ......F
Foundation a fruad for illegal Overseas campaign funding for favors .....................F
Hillary SOS favors for cash from foreign countries.............................................F
Parking in a handicap zone for 3 hours ............................................................F
Does use Federal goverment protocal paper work .............................................F
Use off line unprotected file server for goverment information ............................F
Missing for 4 weeks after Benghazi (stress head injury) .............................. ......F
"What does it matter" .......... wrong answer....................................................F
"What difference at this point does it make" .... Americans are dead ................... F
With holding information on the sercurity of American .......................................F
WTF where you duning Benghazi (asleep at the switch) ....................................F
4 dead America un accountable reason on your watch ...................................... F
does not give good blow jobs ( ask Bill) .........................................................F

fish82;1724036 wrote:35% on ANY income level is pretty stupid.

It is wrong to say that it would a 35% tax on income...it is a 35% tax on consumption above $75,000 for an individual. People are not taxed on what they put into the economy but on what they take out. If they are prudent and save and invest their income they are taxed less than those who are imprudent and do not save. In particular, if you're an individual consuming over $75,000 worth of goods and services the price of consumption increases. that is exactly what we should doing if we want to increase saving and investment.

That is a a pro-growth tax change.

Spock;1724058 wrote:yeah its a fact that 23% flat tax pays for everything the government needs.

A 23% flat rate that would also apply to additions to savings is way worse than a 35% rate that only applies to discretionary consumption. People focus too much on the rate rather than the tax base. They see 35% and think "that is more than a third of my income! That's unjust!" What they should be seeing is that it is more than a third of discretionary consumption! Big difference because taxing discretionary consumption reduces long run real GDP (and therefore aggregate happiness) much less than taxing additions to saving and non-discretionary consumption at a lower flat rate.

gut;1724038 wrote:Actually, I neglected the lower half of the rate - the break points aren't $75/$150k because 15% is 10 points lower for a significant chunk of your income, which would help a lot of people....you don't start losing until @ $115/$225k, and the extra $2500 credit pushes that further out to like $150/270k.

So I guess it's a much better plan than I thought, but it's a pretty big tax cut, especially for the rich, and is just going to add to the deficit. Reality is the structural deficit is probably approaching $600B (and growing), so you need more revenues not less.

We want the rich to save their money and put it to use for the rest of us. It is a tax cut for the rich only if they save and invest. This is fine because we are the beneficiaries as a society of saving and investment. Could easily have all capital gains and interest income accrue tax free to ta 401(k) type mechanism wherein if it was withdrawn for consumption purposes it is taxed at the rates in Rubio-Lee or higher rates if we need more revenue. This way, if we are worried about the deficit, we could add on additional marginal rates above 35% such as 50% on $500,000 worth of discretionary consumption as an example.

We can't make the rich bear the burden of taxation unless we are reducing their consumption. Rich guys like Warren Buffet, Elon Musk and Bill Gates who put their money to use for investors, the future and poor African children should be taxed less than rich people like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton who use their wealth for conspicuous consumption.

Unlike the Ryan framework, Rubio-Lee which embraces the idea of higher marginal rates on discretionary consumption would be a move in that direction. If we need more revenue tacking on higher rates at higher levels of consumption becomes pro-growth unlike in our current code which discourages higher levels of income as opposed to just higher levels of consumption. GOP pundits focus too much on the rate, as if it were a tax on income, rather than the much more pro-growth shift in the tax base.

If we needed short run fiscal stimulus we could just reduce the lowest bracket rate across the business cycle w/o the need for anymore Porkulus Packages.

Beyond Rubio-Lee, if the GOP ever really wants to crush the Democrats and eliminate the deficit and the EPA all at once, they'll embrace a Carbon Tax which is infinitely better than Cap and Trade or other kinds of regulation and other kinds of consumption taxes like a VAT.

I am sad Rubio has decided to run for President because I do not think he is ready yet and is betting the house on being the Super-Hawk when he has been putting forward thinking policies on the table as a Senator. I don't think he will end up winning and he will be out of office. Hopefully he gets knocked out earlier enough to submit his papers for the Senate race.

While it's too late for me, not only do the rich 'benefit' from no tax on savings and investment....but it's a huge benefit for middle class and upper middle class wealth building as nest eggs can grow unfettered from the burden of taxes.

so we can transfer the tax burden with the least resources

isadore;1725056 wrote:so we can transfer the tax burden with the least resources

Those with the least resources pay no tax or very little tax.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations


Clinton Foundation failed to disclose 1,100 foreign doantions.

Will this set of criminals get back in the White House?

Al Bundy;1725073 wrote:Those with the least resources pay no tax or very little tax.

as it should be, but not as it will be if we start cutting or eliminating corporate income. capital gains and estate taxes and the progressive characteristics of personal income tax.

isadore;1725261 wrote:as it should be, but not as it will be if we start cutting or eliminating corporate income. capital gains and estate taxes and the progressive characteristics of personal income tax.

Did you miss the part where it was a flat 35% for those same people with pretty much no deductions? In other words their actual tax burden would go up even with the elimination of all of those other things.

jmog;1725265 wrote:Did you miss the part where it was a flat 35% for those same people with pretty much no deductions? In other words their actual tax burden would go up even with the elimination of all of those other things.

Breaks for the rich, the corporations. Screw the poor, aged, handicapped.
“Gone would be taxes on capital gains and dividends, as well as estates.”
“The plan would end the unusual U.S. practice of taxing businesses on income earned overseas. Instead, it would move to a territorial system, in which businesses are taxed only on income earned in the U.S.”
Cut corporate taxes
Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.

isadore;1725303 wrote: “Gone would be taxes on capital gains and dividends, as well as estates.”

I didn't read enough to know if the tax is 0 or the taxes are gone simply because it will be taxed as ordinary income (i.e. 35%). I don't see how this could eliminate cap gains and be close to revenue neutral.

The overseas stuff is a non-starter because that money doesn't normally get repatriated to be taxed, anyway. This would at least allow the money to come back to be invested in the US.