Rand Paul

Rand Paul: "Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over"

The Kentucky senator outlines plans in WSJ, on same opinion page that blasts Marco Rubio's budget-busting proposal.

|

Daily Beast

Libertarianish Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has announced the outlines of an income tax plan that will, in his words, "blow up the tax code and start over." In the Wall Street Journal, Paul writes:

I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this "The Fair and Flat Tax."

To paraphrase Matthew McConnaughey, all right, all right, all right. Then again, the details, which have not yet been released, really matter. Especially when, like all flat taxes, you start out immediately with exemptions, despite the whole idea of a flat tax being equally applied to all people and income, right?

All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.

I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

SCTV

The business-activity tax is causing a rumble in the gut of everyone I know who looks at taxes from a free-market perspective. The main fear is that it ends up being even worse than a VAT by dint of being fully hidden from any specific activity or transaction. Taxes that are not visible to the people paying them tend to expand, after all.

Well, we'll see what's in the cake once Paul releases the details later today. Check back for that.

For now, read Paul's outline.

Interestingly, in the very same opinion section that carries Paul's piece is a stinging house editorial by the Journal that critiques the tax reform plan of his fellow presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Some wees back, Rubio released with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a tax plan that promised "family fairness" and economic growth. As Shikha Dalmia and I explained in separate pieces, the plan was the product of "reform conservatives" who seek to use the tax code to engage in both social engineering and vote-buying. Here's Dalmia's piece and here's mine.

Rubio-Lee would raise the credit to $2,500 per head. The left-leaning Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates this would forgo revenue of $1.576 trillion over a decade. The Tax Foundation estimate is in the same ballpark—notably, on both a static budget basis and using dynamic scoring.

The reason is that unlike the investment portions of Rubio-Lee, the child tax credit does nothing for economic growth. The only growth case for it is the Keynesian claim that it would boost consumer spending and aggregate demand, but by now we've seen how that doesn't work….

there are also big political problems. One is that child subsidies concede the use of the tax code for social policy, and more political mediation over neutrality and individual decisions. By dumping the goal of a cleaner, more neutral code, Republicans will have less credibility to oppose liberal favoritism. Democrats can always outbid Republicans on this kind of policy, starting with the demand that the credit be "refundable," or paid in a check to those who have no tax liability….

Mr. Rubio has let himself be swayed by a coterie of non-economist conservatives who view the tax code as an engine of social policy. This crowd denigrates marginal-rate cuts as politically déclassé, but then the child credit is one of the hoariest forms of tax gimmickry, an echo of Jimmy Carter's New Jobs credit, or Mr. Bush in 2001 and hisPelosi tax rebates in 2008.

Read "Rubio's Tax Mistake" here.

Related: "Is 'Reform Conservatism' a Friend or Foe of Limited Government?", a forum moderated by Dalmia and including a debate with Yuval Levin, the leader of the reformocon movement, and responses from The Federalist's Ben Domenech, Cato's Jason Kuznicki, and me.

Matt Welch recently interview Rand Paul about his new book and just about everything else that matters. Take a look:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

281 responses to “Rand Paul: "Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over"

  1. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated.

    Because God forbid we stop fucking with the housing market and encouraging people to possibly trap themselves in dying cities and regions.

    1. Yes, well the cult of homeownership is hard to overcome. What Rand is proposing is still a pretty solid leap in the right direction, at least based on the outline.

      1. Well, he does get way more points than Rubio.

      2. The big issue is the “industries” affected by the flat tax. Tax attorneys, CPA’s, IRS employees, TurboTax, H&R Block…blah, blah, blah…are the real impediments to this sort of thing.

    2. Agreed. It’s the only deduction I get and I’m willing to get rid of it for a simpler, flatter tax code.

      Disclosure: I still think all involuntary taxes are theft

      1. Now, I’m not attacking, and I do believe taxes are somewhat confiscatory…but what constitute “involuntary” or “Voluntary” taxes?

        1. A voluntary tax isn’t really a tax at all I guess. I think government services should be fee for use. So a road tax or fee is a legitimate tax for road use. Court fees for using the court system, etc. then you would only get government services that people voluntarily pay for. No one is going to send money to fund prawns running on ttead mills voluntarily.

        2. The lottery is a voluntary tax.

          1. So if I volunteer as tribute, am I doubly taxed?

          2. The lottery is an idiot tax.

            1. Lottery is a tax on those who flunked math.

              1. I see this so many times, and while it may be true for those who think they depend on it, in other ways it is perfectly rational. Some people will never get rich by their own work, whether from lack of skills or lack of ambition, but if they can afford to dump $5 a week on lottery tickets instead of a beer or two or a pack of ciggies, it at least has the upside of possibly winning enough to make a difference in their lives.

            2. The lottery is a reasonable gamble is you restrict yourself to just a few tickets a year. One ticket per large jackpot infinitely increases your odds of winning. It’s that second ticket on the same jackpot that experiences massive diminishing returns.

              1. However, if everybody played like I do the jack pots would be about 10K.

            3. I will buy mega millions or power ball when they hit $250 M . If I’m to be a loser, I want to lose BIG.

        3. I think you could make a legitimate case for a voluntary tax on the notional value of contracts. You could get around the tax, but the contract wouldn’t be enforceable in a court of law.

          1. So, income taxes are voluntary because you can opt out by not earning money?

            1. Not exactly comparable. With income taxes, you aren’t in and of itself consuming government services in the act of earning money. For a contract to be legally binding, you are.

            2. Income taxes are a direct tax and essentially immoral, unethical and a tax on a persons being, not on some abstract economic activity of choice.

      2. You deduct property taxes and sales tax too presumably.

    3. He’s spoken in the past about phasing out the mortgage deduction. As for charities, I support the deduction if it means privTe groups are more likely
      To get money than a government. Especially if they are competing for services with that government.

    4. YOU CAN HAVE MY MORTGAGE DEDUCTION WHEN YOU PRY IT OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HAND.

  2. Rubio-Lee would raise the credit to $2,500 per head.

    Doesn’t sound very fair to my family, Rubio.

    1. This is a new spin on an old proposal from Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO. Their argument is that we should be incentivizing child birth because in the long run, more people means more productivity (as well as more people to support SS and Medicare).

      In general, I’m not terribly against credits for additional children, and I tend to agree that if you are going to subsidize anything, this is one of the least harmful.

      My big problem with this proposal is Ponnuru himself. He launches ridiculous attacks against any tax plan- liberal or conservative- that doesn’t follow his Catholic-inspired plan. Thus any improvement that conservatives offer is often undermined by its own pundits. In essence, Ponnuru and his chronies have made every tax plan an enemy of theirs rather than looking for improvements wherever we can get them.

      1. I disagree that its the least harmful. I think its just as harmful but the least obvious harm.

        Presumably, the least productive people produce the least productive children, while the most productive, produce the most productive children. unfortunately the least productive people product the most children. This reduces future income from the next generation while increasing the expensiveness of that generation. By incentivizing the least productive people to burden the society with the least productive most expensive descendants you are burning the candle at both ends..

        1. Even the least productive children are still productive. Would we prefer it if every new child were a doctor or engineer in the making? Sure. But even if that kid is a future fry cook, they will provide value.

        2. It’s also another subsidy to the Christian right, denied to gay couples and essentially co-habiting couples. And they do talk about it that way,

          The “joint filing” punishes working women, despite the seemingly lower rate. The second working spouse STARTS at the first spouses tax bracket.

          On the other hand, the “family values” crowd has a point (for once) All the studies show that the breakup of the traditional two-parent family has rather severe social effects. But the child tax credit is probably too small to affect anything on so large a scale.

          I worked in Canada for a few years in the 70’s Manitoba had a tax scheme which I’ve read a handful of our states use. Their sales ta was already 7% back then, but a wide variety of things bought for children were exempt, mostly clothing in dollars. It wasn’t exact. my midget secretary got the child exemption on her clothes. Bu t thought at the time, if we must have a tax exemption for children, it makes more sense to base it on the actual spending to support those kids. (Groceries are exempt almost everywhere,)

          But Rand Paul’s plan smells like Obama’s plans , structured for PR appeal instead of tax policy. With so many goodies, I can’t believe spending can be cut lower than current Medicare and Social Security spending, for the entire federal government. Anybody can do it on a calculator. Don’t bet on Congress passing it in the next 50 years or so.

  3. Anyone who talks about blowing things up is a terrorist! See? Libertarians are terrorists!

    1. I know, right? Where is Preet Bharara when you need him?

      1. He’s probably at a hardware store trying to find an even broader paintbrush.

        1. Trouble is, the paintbrush aisle takes you right past the woodchippers.

          1. That hardware store is microagressing me!

  4. I’m a little surprised. WSJ is typically very pro-establishment.

    1. I bet they’re even more pro-readership.

      Besides, next week’s op-ed page will consist almost entirely of pieces “rebutting” Rand’s “insane, dystopic tax plan.”

      1. Besides, next week’s op-ed page will consist almost entirely of pieces “rebutting” Rand’s “insane, dystopic tax plan.”

        It is crazy you brainwashed misfuck

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

  5. Here is a better tax plan: tax representation in Congress, charge it to states, let them figure out how to collect it, and completely eliminate all direct federal taxation. Change the constitution if need be.

    1. ^^^^THIS. So much this. Get the worthless federal government out of the busines of setting tax policy.

      1. And if a State can’t pay because it’s broke? Toss it out of the Union!

        1. I think you could just deny the state representation in Congress until the tax is paid. That is not perfect, but I think dissolving the state government or forcing the state’s secession would be far more problematic. Alternately, you could just exempt the state and its citizens from any federal government benefits that are not paid in advance (e.g. Social Security) or funded by user fees (e.g. passports).

          1. While you couldn’t (and I think shouldn’t) Constitutionally deny it representation, you could refuse to send any Federal money to any of the States for anything until their bill is paid. This would include payments to individual citizens/corporations within the state.

            1. Why would you pay to get federal money unless you pay less to get more? If you pay less to get more, why can’t they just deduct the difference?

    2. Holy crap, that’s brilliant.

      Totally stealing this idea.

      1. I call it the (Old) Tea Party Obverse. They said “No taxation without representation”, this says “Taxation only with representation”.

    3. Isn’t this more or less what the Articles of Confederation had?

      1. It’s more or less what the US Constitution had prior to 1913. Congress wanted to tax those filthy rich people but didn’t want their beloved working class to have to pay anything (sound familiar?) and there was a lot of debate, both politically and legally, about whether taxes on incomes were “direct” taxes and needed to be apportioned pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In 1909 Congress, not willing to wait for that debate to shake out, passed the 16th Amendment that essentially established income taxes as direct taxes that do not need to be apportioned, which was finally ratified in 1913 (CT, RI & UT voted against it).

    4. FEDERALISM! Didn’t see your comment before I posted a somewhat longer version of what amounts to exactly the same thing — Return to Federalism

      1. Dang, blew the hyperlink in that last post, let’s try it again 🙂

        Return to Federalism

    5. Only problem is that over half of all federal spending now is direct transfer to individuals (SS/Medicare) – and that ain’t going anyway anytime soon

      Other than that – I really like the idea

      1. JFree, congratulatons on knowing the federal budget. As the details flesh out, Rand’s tax plan has a lot more issues than you might imagine

        Think of SS/Medicare total spending.
        Rand’s math leaves remaining total federal revenues of slightly over $1 trillion. (Subtract $2 trillion from current total revenues.

        As you may already realize, Rand says we can run the entire federal government on roughly the same total revenues as SS/Medicare alone. Feel free to confirm that. Include the quarter-trillion subsidy from general revenues,

        I see an Obama-type proposal, structured more for polling than reality. But he claims, in effect, that he can balance the budget in five years, adding $2 trillion in tax cuts to prox a half-trillion current deficit.

        ‘Nuf said?

    6. You don’t seem to get it.
      FEDGOV looks at itself as the great equalizer.
      They collect from everywhere and decide who gets what. I think they would rather not have the states collect any taxes and all of it get sent to them.
      It is from there that FEDGOV’s power is derived, and we know how often people will relinquish power, once they have it.
      The Founders wanted FEDGOV to be able to fund itself only through tariffs and excises, not through any direct taxes, “unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration”.
      Well, once FEDGOV learned that a compliant SCOTUS would let them change that, the move was on. The amendment process was made far too easy IMHO.

      1. SCOTUS doesn’t change (amend) the constitution

        The amendment process was made far too easy IMHO.

        If SCOTUS could do it on its own? Jefferson believed every generation should create a new Constitution. THOMAS Jefferson.

  6. While a bona fide flat tax would be best (well, aside from doing away with income tax, which ain’t happenin’ anytime soon),this plan is a fuckton better than what we have. At least the average person could understand what is being taxed and how much. While corporate/business taxes are a waste and just hide personal taxation in the prices of goods and services, at least it’s lower than the current corporate tax rate.

    1. “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”.

      I’d say it’s a long awaited step in the right direction.

    2. While a bona fide flat tax would be best

      One more misfuck, eagerly manipulated by the crazy right.

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

    1. Definitely. Anything that gets rid f the corrupt ad despicable IRS in the process is a bonus.

  7. This plan is real. And it’s spectacular.

    1. +two nice tits.

  8. While I’m in fantasyland, Rand should demand a budget cap set by the previous years actually tax receipts, instead of projected revenues and all income tax should be paid at the end of the year in a lump sum.

  9. Tax reform. Fanfuckingtastic. It’s about time. Let’s get rid of property taxes while we’re at it.

    1. That’s a state issue. And it would be nice.

      1. All taxes suck, but at least property taxes are closer to user-fees than income tax. You pay the tax locally and presumably for local services (like roads, sewer, police, etc.). Property taxes should, IMO, be WAAAAAAY down the list of tax bitches. Plus, property taxes are visible, and you have to pay them every month (or semi-annually in most states, if you don’t have a mortgage payment). That’s why people hate property taxes — you can see them and you have to pay them out of pocket. This keeps people aware and invested in making sure that they’re low, reasonable, spent on actually necessary services, etc. If property taxes were the only taxes collected, we’d have a lot smaller government.

        1. Good points. I suppose I should have prefaced my statement by saying is like them replaced with user fees.

          1. No disagreement from me on that. User fees are the way to go, but that’s a pipe dream in my lifetime. The best I can reasonably hope for is a FedGov that stops growing. A transparent tax policy would be a step in the right direction in that regard.

            1. I fully support user taxes, so long as all the USERS are paying. Property taxes are insanely skewed by users who do not pay their fair share (primarily for education), so in many cases a more direct matriculation (user) fee for those services is warranted.

        2. Also, some of us asshole Geoists think that the undeveloped value of land should not belong, in a moral sense, to any person; property rights are a utilitarian concession the public makes to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and land value tax is taken to make the public whole (though, in such a scenario, much of it should be redistributed on a per cap basis).

          1. And, indeed, in an agricultural economy dominated by remnants of feudalism, the Georgist approach isn’t totally insane.

            In the modern world, though . . . .

            1. People still eat.

            2. The Georgist approach works BEST in a modern world. Taiwan and Singapore are hardly agricultural economies and their Georgist tax means that they don’t need much taxes on other stuff. No surprise they are the model for actual free competitive market economies as well. Estonia is easily the best example of former Soviet place transitioning to free market – and probably more of a free market now than the US – and not agricultural either. Denmark adds a whole slew of social welfare nonsense and taxes on top of Georgist land tax – but it is that land tax base that makes it the most sustainable of the social welfare states.

              The reality is that a Georgist tax only really harms pure speculation. And the reason it is opposed in the US so vociferously is precisely because land speculation based on insider knowledge of either manipulated interest rates or zoning/infrastructure is how most American billionaires made their money.

              1. Just looking at one ‘ranking’ of countries by ‘free market’ (not some UN crap – but still obviously flawed) –

                http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

                The US ranks 12th. HK and Singapore rank #1,#2. Estonia is #8. Denmark is #11. Taiwan is #14. Australia (has LVT in Sydney area) is #4.

                For a tax system that is nearly forgotten and obsolete elsewhere, that is one hell of a record of a tax system that doesn’t itself creates distortions elsewhere in the market.

        3. Disagree.

          Property taxes are the most evil of taxes because they function more like lease feed or rent. We don’t own our property so long as not paying property taxes = have your home taken from you rather than simply being denied the services listed on the tax bill.

          1. I couldn’t agree with you more. You never own your own land with property taxes. You rent from the govt. If you don’t pay, men with guns show up and take it away from you. We can never be fully free without the ability to own our own land.

            1. What do you do with the land when you die? Do you expect the state to transfer the land to someone of your choosing simply because it should obey the will of a dead person for nothing?

              And let me assure you – without the state, you still don’t ‘own’ anything that can’t be taken from you by someone with a bigger gun. Ask the Indians how that works.

  10. I don’t have any illusions about it being taken seriously, but to have a sitting senator actually write and publish this is still god damn exciting.

    1. Oh, it’s gonna be his main campaign point. And he’s gonna sell it on MSNBC more easily than he will on Fox News. This could be a game changer. It’s a progressive tax with a huge initial deduction.

      He needs a website where people can plug income levels and family size, mortgage and charitable donTion levels in and see where they’d end up. He does that effectively and it sells itself.

      1. meh…get ready for a lot of “blow a hole in the budget” comments

        1. It needs to be calculated by an outside group to see what the receipts would be.

          He could sell it up to 17-18% though. It still works out better for little guys.

      2. I just did the math, and at my income level it would save me about $3,000 a year.

        Not to mention the additional benefits of lowering taxes on corporations will boost job creation, investment.

        Also, laying off 90% of the IRS (hopefully) would be awesome.

        So yeah, pass it.

        1. For me, according to my math…probably $6k-$8k a year.

          I’d say that’s a significant difference.

        2. Did you factor in what you would no longer be paying in payroll taxes, SSI and Medicare as well? Because that’s where the big savings will occur for people under $100k a year.

          1. Would this replace payroll taxes? Until we see the details, I wouldn’t presume that.

            If so, it would save me about $30k. If not, it would save me about $10k.

            1. The WSJ article says it replaces payroll, SSI and Medicare taxes too. Which is why it will be a big seller to poor-to-middle class people.

              1. Not sure the numbers add up. Even tho payroll doesn’t cover outlays, it’s still several hundred billion per year. I think the cut has to be even more than 2TT.

    2. All-Seeing Woodchipper|6.18.15 @ 10:36AM|#
      but to have a sitting senator actually write and publish this is still god damn exciting.

      To a fucking retard who’s eager and easily brainwashed. (laugh)

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

  11. I think Gillespie has a thing for Shailene Woodley (NTTAWWT).

    The only explanation for his obsession with that picture.

    1. How else to reach precious millennialls besides constantly referencing YA fandom!

    2. Shhh, we need to maintain the bullshit libertarian moment … as the libertarian brand is rejected by even 91% of libertarians.

      Never challenge the cult.

  12. As much as I like this, I can’t help but think this just torpedoed his chances. I think he would have been far better off going with a two-tier system. “$100k gets taxed at 25%”

    I want a flat-tax as much as everyone else here, but I just don’t think it is palatable for most of America. They’re going to go “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Now when he includes businesses at the same 14%, they’re going to go “LOLOLOLOL businesses are people and Rand hates workers and loves the rich”

    It just plays right into the left’s hand.

    1. Except it kills all of the money taxed under $50k for that same person. He can sell that easier by saying “now these workers get more say in where all of their money gets spent”.

      1. Right, but you could still do the same thing with a two-tier system. You leave the same standard deduction in place. That has nothing to do with adding a second marginal rate.

        1. It becomes unnecessary once people see that it’s actually a sliding scale due to the huge deduction.

          The only people that would clamor for a two tier system are the people that would want to fuck rich people out of wealth more so than income. Anything short of a wealth tax won’t satisfy them.

        2. This is a good point. A tiered system may have been more palatable. That being said, if the MSM wants to make Rand out to be a hater of the poor, it can do so with or without a two tier system. They’d just say “see, he’s lowering the tax rate for the ‘rich’ by X%, while raising the tax rate for the poorest Americans.” While we all know this is BS, the average voter woouldn’t.

          1. That being said, if the MSM wants to make Rand out to be a hater of the poor

            It’s easier to expose Rand Paul as a crazy misfuck. And his cult,
            Ten minutes of Google research will do.

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

    2. Your problem is that you let the leftoid in your head beat you. The left has been pushing class warfare in this country for over a century, and it’s still not taken root in the American public (hence their insistence to import third world socialist scum, which you guys naively support).

      1. The left has been pushing class warfare in this country for over a century, and it’s still not taken root in the American public

        Sure it has. They’re totally clueless of how bad it is, the extent of MASSIVE middle-class subsidies and wealth redistribution (The Bush admin as the largest recent example)

    3. Yeah, it isn’t the complexities of multi-linear curves that shit up our tax system, it’s deciding what counts as income in the first place. Leave the progressive tax rate as a battle for another day, just simplify the determination of income and eliminate withholding.

      1. it’s deciding what counts as income in the first place…
        …just simplify the determination of income and eliminate withholding.

        THIS. No tax simplification is going to help me (freelancer) as long as I have to figure out how much I make. There’s no way Schedule C is going away under any flat tax scheme.

      2. just …. eliminate withholding.

        How many votes will that bring?

  13. I hope Rand didn’t pull this card too soon on the campaign trail.

    IF I was one of his competitors, I would be loving the fact that I get to see a test case for this type of proposal so long before election day. If it bombs, watch Paul go down and disown anything with the Rand brand. If it proves to be successful, co-opt it cause you have a year and a half till election day to include it in the platform and chase more money!

    Otherwise, I like the idea of a flat tax. It would be a big improvement.

    1. My guess is he has some other sensational announcements that he will dole out periodically. At any rate, he’s gotta gain some interest and traction in this crowded GOP field which shows no sign of plateauing.

      1. At any rate, he’s gotta gain some interest and traction in this crowded GOP field which shows no sign of plateauing.

        He gets crazier every week. First he ridicules those women like some asshole.

        Then he proposes a tax plan that will be eagerly swallowed only by his (and Dad’s) cult

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

        1. You are a hateful troll, but Rand still loves you asswipe.

          1. As you ignore incon-veeeeeen-yent proof like Birthers do.
            No, I’m not Kenyan.

  14. Related: “Is ‘Reform Conservatism’ a Friend or Foe of Limited Government?”, a forum moderated by Dalmia and including a debate with Yuval Levin, the leader of the reformocon movement, and responses from The Federalist’s Ben Domenech, Cato’s Jason Kuznicki, and me.

    A forum moderated by Dalmia?!? “Yes Mr Levin, your tax rate proposal is all well and good, but why are you avoiding the subject of the recent electoral happenings in this remote corner of India? Why aren’t you demystifying the Hindu religion? The real issue that everyone here wants to hear about though, is the wonderfulness of 3rd world immigration.”

  15. It’s certainly a breath of fresh air.

    In addition to any up front cash savings, it will alleviate huge hidden costs of tax based misallocation of economic activity.

  16. You’d probably want to set the flat tax rate equal to federal spending divided by GDP. Since 1950, that’s averaged about 20% with variations of up to 3% or so in both directions, but it’s remained fairly steady. For example, in 2012 Gary Johnson called for a 23% federal flat tax that would have been revenue neutral at the time (today it would be closer to 21%).

    A flat tax rate of 14.5%, with deductions, would require a significant drop in expenditures. Now I’m all for that, but it will be politically difficult.

    1. He’s counting on a boost to GDP and broadening tax base due to increased economic activity as people who get to keep more of their money spend and invest it.

    2. LPDave|6.18.15 @ 11:17AM
      A flat tax rate of 14.5%, with deductions, would require a significant drop in expenditures.

      And a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class!

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

      1. So what? If we want to have spending anywhere near where it is right now, the middle class is going to have taxes raised. It has to happen. Whether it’s income tax or some other hidden tax, that chunck of the population is getting hit. Frankly, they should. Our tax system is too progressive as it is.

        1. Not your f*ing khakis|6.18.15 @ 2:55PM|#
          So what?

          Umm, that Rand Paul is a batshit crazy liar … as you agree.

          If we want to have spending anywhere near where it is right now, the middle class is going to have taxes raised. It has to happen.

          So why does Rand Paul lie through is teeth about it?

          Whether it’s income tax or some other hidden tax, that chunk of the population is getting hit. Frankly, they should. Our tax system is too progressive as it is.

          How will we get elected on that policy? Or do we need a military coup?
          Are there any other alternatives? If so, what?

          Take your best guess, when will Rand announce the extent of his tax increase on the middle class?

  17. My question – is the 50k a deadline, or is there some escalation? Because there is the obvious issue of people around that level of pay getting screwed over.

    Nothing else against the plan. Tax codes needs simplification. This will never actually happen or even come close, though.

    1. First 50K untaxed. 50,001 means you pay 14.5 cents income tax which is less than the stamp on your federal return.

      1. Ah. So, I read it wrong. First 50k is simply untaxed and earnings after that are taxed. Makes a lot more sense than the progressive taxes that get put forward.

        1. Yes, it looks like the standard deduction is $20k/adult and $5k/child. There have been other plans that use similar standard deductions.

      2. Je suis Woodchipper|6.18.15 @ 11:26AM|#
        First 50K untaxed. 50,001 means you pay 14.5 cents income tax which is less than the stamp on your federal return.

        So, we’re gonna reduce taxable income by 30% AND cut rates … all at once!!!
        WOW!

  18. I think we need a flat tax with no exemptions. The status quo creates disastrous political incentives. We have a relatively small group of people (“the rich”) paying the overwhelming portion of our tax bill, with much of the population paying little or nothing. As a result, people have no real incentive to be concerned about spending because it isn’t their money being spent. And any attempt to cut taxes automatically becomes “cutting taxes for the rich” because they’re the ones paying taxes in the first place.

    1. Set the tax rate every year based on the budget and what should be needed to pay for it. Everyone pays a flat rate.

      It would be the death of the progressive agenda.

      1. Not to mention the country would be a lot pickier about what wars it wants to fight because they aren’t just magic costs pushed off until tomorrow like Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone would have skin in the game when some hawk wants to bomb some Muslim country most Americans can’t find on a map.

    2. National sales tax. Stop taxing production and start taxing destruction. Also everyone gets to “contribute” and they get to see the taxation every time they buy something. Whether you make it progressive or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

  19. By “payroll tax” WTF are people referring to? 7.65% for both employee and employer for FICA was my first thought.

    I’d be fine with an offset raising the ceiling for wages subject to FICA taxes.

    Also, does anything happen to FUTA or will that remain untouched? SUTA being a state tax, I’m assuming it remains unmentioned/untouched.

    1. Yes. In Rand’s video he specifically mentions FICA going away. No mention of FUTA, but who the hell cares about FUTA? SUTA is a state tax and that’s up to your local government.

  20. Great idea Rand – – never going to happen. Your money grubbing colleagues have too much to gain ($$$) by keeping the current tax code with all the exceptions for members of the chamber of commerce.

    Corporate wellfare is a hell of a drug.

  21. I just don’t think it is palatable for most of America. They’re going to go “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Now when he includes businesses at the same 14%, they’re going to go “LOLOLOLOL businesses are people and Rand hates workers and loves the rich”

    It just plays right into the left’s hand.

    I see what you’re saying, but I think it could be sold, if you carefully laid out the elimination of the loophole and “special” treatment the evil rich get.

    1. It may work. I just think it is a fine line to walk without getting totally skewered. He’s going to get hit on the right because his plan doesn’t favor families enough, he’s going to get hit from the special interests, and he’s going to get hit from the left with a populist message (particularly for corporate tax).

      1. This may actually work for the corporate tax because much of the left believes that corps pay no taxes.

        1. Corps don’t really pay taxes.

          1. Overt
            As Buffett loves to point out,

            Buffets. full of shit. And you’ve been manipulated,

            there are simply too many loopholes that allow the rich to lower that cost way down.

            And perhaps EAGER to be brainwashed.

            While upper middle class families dependent on Income pay around 28% of their income (after deductions), the rich are paying closer to under 10%.

            (laughing) The average rate over $1 million is 24%

            What’s upper middle class? $100,000 – $200,000 pays …. 12.7%

            Here’s the poof:

            http://www.irs.gov/file_source…..in11si.xls

            Where do you GET this shit?

    2. The interesting counterpoint is that this eliminates the payroll tax. Consider that a right person pays around 15% in payroll taxes only up to the maximum. After that, their only taxes are income tax. As Buffett loves to point out, there are simply too many loopholes that allow the rich to lower that cost way down. While upper middle class families dependent on Income pay around 28% of their income (after deductions), the rich are paying closer to under 10%.

      Now, the big problem is and will continue to be: What is income? That is not an easy task and will still require plenty of IRS goons to keep straight.

      1. Yes, but essentially eliminating the deduction side of the equation, or at least making it so simple it fits on a postcard, is significant progress. Also, revenue is easier to audit than expenses.

      2. Overt, oops. I hit the wrong Reply link
        Your numbers are insanely bullshit.
        Look just above for the proof.

  22. once people see that it’s actually a sliding scale due to the huge deduction.

    People are always surprised how “progressive” a flat tax is, once you show them some numbers, in my experience.

  23. Return to Federalism. Repeal the 16th Amendment and apportion the Federal revenues to be raised from citizens’ incomes amongst the states. Here’s how it works:

    Federal government passes budget (weird I know but it might happen) that includes planned revenue from individual income taxes e.g. in 2014 revenue was $1,394,568,000,000

    Each state is responsible to collect a percentage of that amount from the incomes of their citizens in whatever manner they want.

    Using 2014 official populations estimates:
    California has 12.168% of the US population and would thus owe $169,708,412,599.78.

    Wyoming with only 0.183% of the US population would only have to collect $2,554,878,637.86

    California could put massive taxes on only the top 1% of income earners to pay their portion while Wyoming might choose to divide their bill evenly amongst all of their citizens (approx $4,373.65 for each man, woman and child) Maybe Texas uses a flat tax and the state of Washington makes Bill Gates pay their portion. Ok that last one is kinda like a bill of attainder but you get the idea. Each state would do what they thought was the best way to raise the revenue and people who agree that form of taxation could move in and those who don’t agree can move out, Federalism at it’s best.

    Source info from:
    Tax Data
    Census Data

    1. Crazy as a fucking loon. Documented below

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

      1. I don’t understand your point. I have not endorsed any one particular income tax scheme, but merely have recommended establishing 50 different income tax schemes and thereby allowing the citizens to move to the State with the scheme that suits them best (provided the tax differences outweigh other benefits of where they currently live that is). Anyone who doesn’t like the current income tax situation has nowhere to go, whether their belief is accurate or not.

        Clearly no on in Congress is interested in this kind of change because once D.C. is out of the income tax business most of the lobbyists interested in tax policy will stop buying them lunch or flying them to exotic tropical getaways for a “tax seminar.” That doesn’t make the re-implementation of Federalism an unwise concept.

        1. I don’t understand your point. I have not endorsed any one particular income tax scheme,

          Followed immediately by “one particular income tax scheme!”

          but merely have recommended establishing 50 different income tax schemes and thereby allowing the citizens to move to the State with the scheme that suits them best

          Who will vote for it?

          Anyone who doesn’t like the current income tax situation has nowhere to go, whether their belief is accurate or not.

          But your fantasy delusion will solve that …. how?

          That doesn’t make the re-implementation of Federalism an unwise concept.

          But a useless proposal.

          For several decades, actual electoral libertarians have said “always be pro-liberty, never be anti-gummint.”

          Even Ayn Rand knew that FIRST we must change the culture.
          But that doesn’t play well in the Ivory Tower of anti-gummint slogans and soundbites.
          Turn off your computer. Get off your ass. Get involved in retail politics and deal with actual voters. Like thousands of us have been doing for decades.

          Here’s a New Federalism that could be actually sold. Based on broadening a concept that came VERY close to being passed … over three decades ago,.

          http://www.libertyissues.com/federalism.htm

          1. Well I tried to read through what you have there. I agree with you that the 17th Amendment was a ruse that has to go to restore balance. I almost included it in my initial post but felt that was introducing too many concepts at once.

            My main problem is that for many people, myself included, the nitty gritty of tax policy is an insomnia antidote. Rand Paul thinks his tax plan is the best, Obama likes his version, you got yours and to be honest I don’t have the time or the energy to learn how to tell who is right. If only one version is implemented at a time supporters will always blame other ostensible economic bases for any shortcomings and opponents will do the same for any successes. You practically need to have a PhD in Economics to know who is full of shit.

            If we must get that involved, the entire concept of representative government has collapsed.

            Apportionment avoids the need for personal understanding of how each system works as the states will be competing against each other to maximize their own domestic product upon which all tax revenue is based. The Federal government has absolutely no tax collection expenses whatsoever and the States have the freedom to pay the bill any way they want.

            1. The sad truth traces to the late 70s tax revolt. We sent one message. Politicians heard their own — they can increase spending as much as they want, for both the military state and the welfare state, as long as the middle class doesn’t pay for it. Or they’ll revolt again.

              Since then, both parties have been looting the federal treasury to buy middle-class votes. See Dubya.

              You may be too young to remember Paul Tsongas’ campaign for President. He was shy on the details, perhaps wisely, but spoke constantly about the Pander Bears in both parties … and he was a Massachusetts liberal.

              Hell, even the Cato Institute promotes policies that are bat-shit crazy, but loaded with anti-gummint slogans and soundbites for the tribe.

              But we can’t solve anything when our won establishment is part of the bullshit feed. Can Obamacare subsidies be passed through state exchanges. Cato’s Michael Tanner said they could, until (I guess) he figured they could hustle more money by saying the opposite.

  24. Any candidate who begins with acknowledging that tweaking the current taxation mess is futile is starting off on the correct foot and has a leg up on the competition in my view.

  25. The misfuck IS even crazier than his father! The average tax rate for the core middle class ($40-100k) is 9% … EVEN WITH ALL THE CURRENT LOOPHOLES!!!

    http://www.irs.gov/file_source…..in11si.xls

    Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about. Do the math.

    a) that middle class reported 30.1% of all personal income but paid only 18.1% of the tax. So the rich subsidize 62% of the core middle class.
    b) Now divide. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share.. That’s only reported income, middle-class tax exemptions drive the subsidy well over 50%

    d) The Flat Tax, the Fair Tax and the Paul tax would roughly double middle-class taxes (OMG)

    Obama says a $50,000 truck driver should not pay a higher rate than millionaires and billionaires. So what do they both pay? At $50,000 the average rate is ? 8%. For millionaires ? 22%. RAND PAUL AGREES WITH OBAMA’s BULLSHIT (OMG)

    Will the dumbass also threaten to defy the Constitution … and 60% of Americans … on a possible SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality … like all the other GOP suckups? And Orval Faubus?

    Libertarian Moment? Or the Eve of Destruction? Thank you Reason.com

    First reported in 1997. (Reason and CATO declined to publish)
    http://www.libertyissues.com/loophole.htm

    Fully documented. Let the screeching begin

    Copyrigh1994-2015 by Michael J Hihn All rights reserved and defended.

    1. If I wanted to read your shitty rants with random bold font I’d be one of the three people who reads your blog, you sloppy cunt.

      1. Brochettaward|6.18.15 @ 12:25PM|#
        If I wanted to read your shitty rants with random bold font I’d be one of the three people who reads your blog, you sloppy cunt

        Don’t check the proof. Just piss all over yourself. Like a Birther.

    2. Don’t use statistics, Michael , and for Godsakes don’t provide a link to any economic journal that will tell you a flat tax is bunk. It won’t end well. I prefer to tell a story.

      1. I prefer to tell a story.

        So do I. But too much bullshit for 1500 characters.

        Follow the libertyissues link, including New Federalism and THREE flat taxes (which works)

      1. MJGreen – Docile Citizen
        Holy fuck. Get some help, man.

        Which part of the official IRS proof has baffled your sorry ass? (snicker)
        No, I was NOT born in Kenya!

    3. that middle class reported 30.1% of all personal income but paid only 18.1% of the tax. So the rich subsidize 62% of the core middle class.

      What about payroll taxes? Looking at the description of the tables on the IRS, those tables appear to only include income tax. Please point me to the description if I am being inaccurate here.

      1. What about payroll taxes?

        Good question. I’m limited to 1500 characters and try to break it down for clarity. FICA is technically separate, in a sense, because Rand’s bullshit is even crazier on that. See proof of THAT here:

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

        Looking at the description of the tables on the IRS, those tables appear to only include income tax. Please point me to the description if I am being inaccurate here

        I wanted to combine with Obama’s equal bullshit on $50,000 taxpayers. Do the math.
        The income tax rates range from 7.9 to 8.2% at $40-100k AGI.
        Add the 6.2 worker FICA for a total range of 14.1 – 14.4% BEFORE removing ANY deductions.

        Or, since I proved the rich are subsidizing 38% of the core middle class income tax, how can a flat tax possibly NOT be a middle-class tax increase REGARDLESS of spending changes?

        Plus he also lies about the size of his tax cut. Immensely,
        Howzat?

        He’s about as crazy as his Dad, or even more depending how you weigh it.

    4. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share..

      This… is coming from someone who calls themselves a “libertarian”…

      I’m sorry, how does confiscation and “paying your fair share” rhetoric square with NAP?

      1. ace_m82|6.18.15 @ 1:38PM|#
        The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share..

        This… is coming from someone who calls themselves a “libertarian”…

        Simple arithmetic is anti-libertarian now?

        I’m sorry, how does confiscation and “paying your fair share” rhetoric square with NAP?

        I’m sorry, that was ridiculing Obama’s bullshit, not a proposal.
        Even sadder that you can’t tell the difference.

        1. Simple arithmetic is anti-libertarian now?

          No, but prog talk and non sequiturs are.

          I’m sorry, that was ridiculing Obama’s bullshit, not a proposal.
          Even sadder that you can’t tell the difference.

          Ahem:

          Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about…

          So which one is it?

          1. Simple arithmetic is anti-libertarian now?

            No, but prog talk and non sequiturs are.

            Any examples? The simple arithmetic has made an ass out of you, without a single word of anything.

            I’m sorry, that was ridiculing Obama’s bullshit, not a proposal.
            Even sadder that you can’t tell the difference.

            Ahem:

            (snicker) You got called out as a liar. Again.

            This time I’ll correct your bullshit quote of me:

            Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about. Do the math.
            a) that middle class reported 30.1% of all personal income but paid only 18.1% of the tax. So the rich subsidize 62% of the core middle class.
            b) Now divide. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share.. That’s only reported income, middle-class tax exemptions drive the subsidy well over 50%
            d) The Flat Tax, the Fair Tax and the Paul tax would roughly double middle-class taxes (OMG)

            So which one is it?

            All of them. (laughing) Fully documented on the facts. Plus junior high math.

            1. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share

              Examples of prog talk and Non Sequiturs. Awaiting your apology… Yeah, right…

              Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about…

              How is bringing up that you said “A” was Libertarian and then claimed it was from Obama in any universe a “lie”?

              See folks, this is what you get when you change the meaning of words as you go along: muddled thinking.

              The simple arithmetic has made an ass out of you

              BTW, I never argued the math with you. The only bit of it I could scrape out of the drool you call an argument was correct. Your point on the FICA taxes was right, as far as I cared to think about it.

              That’s the problem with being generally hostile to all people who disagree with you, you inevitably accuse people of things they didn’t say or think. I would know, I’ve done it before too.

              1. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share

                Examples of prog talk and Non Sequiturs.

                All this was documented as bullshit here:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379345

                And here:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379597

                Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about…

                How is bringing up that you said “A” was Libertarian and then claimed it was from Obama in any universe a “lie”?

                Already answered

                This time I’ll correct your bullshit quote of me:

                Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about. Do the math.
                a) that middle class reported 30.1% of all personal income but paid only 18.1% of the tax. So the rich subsidize 62% of the core middle class.
                b) Now divide. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share.. That’s only reported income, middle-class tax exemptions drive the subsidy well over 50%
                d) The Flat Tax, the Fair Tax and the Paul tax would roughly double middle-class taxes (OMG)

                So which one is it?

                All of them. (laughing) Fully documented on the facts. Plus junior high math

                1. need a 61% tax increase… just to pay its own share…

                  Let’s see how full of it you are: Are those terms prog talk or not? Do any people except progs talk about “needing a tax increase” or “paying their fair share”?

                  Already answered

                  Not in anything future archaeologists would ever think as a language commonly called “English”… So please, enlighten me, uh, once?

                  Were those Libertarian lies or words to ridicule Obama? And if (somehow) both, how?

                  1. A truly psychotic liar

                    need a 61% tax increase… just to pay its own share…

                    Let’s see how full of it you are:

                    Third repeat of that pathetic lie

                    Are those terms prog talk or not? Do any people except progs talk about “needing a tax increase” or “paying their fair share”?

                    One more time for the mentally impaired: Shame on me for proving Obama is full of shit about the middle class paying more than its share of taxes. And until you show me arguing for a tax increase … you’re just another asshole lying about Rand’s crazy tax plan … which assumes Obama’s is correct on tax fairness.

                    Were those Libertarian lies or words to ridicule Obama??

                    (Laughing) Both

                    And if (somehow) both, how

                    Explained here
                    https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379910

                    And twice before that PLEASE keep showing the mentality and honesty of the Paulista Cult!

                    1. Third repeat of that pathetic lie

                      So you directly deny that “need a tax increase” and “pay its own share” are prog talk? Fair enough, you are either a knave or a moron (or both). Thanks for that clarification.

                      you’re just another asshole lying about Rand’s crazy tax plan

                      What’s the lie? That you use prog talk? That is self-evident.

                      Oh, and your links that lead to… more links (that I’ve already followed in trying to keep up with your “logic”) is juvenile. Just because you try to “cite sources” to your Non Sequiturs doesn’t mean that you are mentally superior or right. You are linking to other posts you made that were Non Sequiturs when you made them!

                      Arguing with you is like playing chess with a mentally challenged 4 year old. The rules keep changing and you keep switching which game we’re playing.

                      And I haven’t once defended his plan! You don’t even remember who you’re talking to!

                    2. So you directly deny that “need a tax increase” and “pay its own share” are prog talk?

                      1) Where did I ever propose ANY tax increase. Be specific. If you’re too stupid to provide a link then copy and past the date and time so smart people can find it.
                      2) Those who say “prog” are almost always retards.
                      3) You’re the retard who defended Ron Paul’s “plan” to give a 100% tax cut to only the rich (snicker)

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5380281

                    3. Where did I ever propose ANY tax increase.

                      You didn’t (not directly). You simply used prog talk. It’s there for everyone to read. You should read my posts very carefully next time.

                      Those who say “prog” are almost always retards.

                      Short for “progressive”, which would more aptly be called “regressive”, but I digress. You call lots of people retards.

                      You’re the retard who defended Ron Paul’s “plan” to give a 100% tax cut to only the rich (snicker)

                      Try to actually read this one this time, I have defended 0, absolutely 0 tax plans from any politicians in this entire web discussion. Go look at all of my posts, you will see my comments are only here to show you how you’re wrong, not how the politicians’ plans are right.

                      I really don’t know why I bother to respond at this point. It’s like talking to stubborn 5 year old having a tantrum in the middle of Walmart.

                    4. Called out, the liar confesses

                      Where did I ever propose ANY tax increase.

                      You didn’t (not directly).

                      (flush)

                      You simply used prog talk. It’s there for everyone to read.

                      You’re the retard who defended Ron Paul’s “plan” to give a 100% tax cut to only the rich (snicker)

                      I have defended 0, absolutely 0 tax plans from any politicians in this entire web discussion. Go look at all of my posts,

                      Here’s the proof. We already know he’ll deny it, so just click and read.
                      He defends Ron Paul’s “plan” to give a 100% tax cut to only the rich.
                      (yawn)

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5380281

                    5. Called out, the liar confesses

                      I never said you called for a tax raise, now did I? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait.

                      Now that that’s out of the way, how about an apology for calling me a liar. Didn’t think so.

                      Here’s the proof.

                      Go ahead, click and read. You’ll see where I pointed out that you were wrong without once, not one time, defending a politician’s plan.

                      I’m not sure you see in anything other that “me vs them”. If you say “A” is wrong for “B” reason, and I point out that “B” isn’t true, you actually think that I’m defending “A”. That’s not necessarily so.

                      You are far and away the most obnoxious person I’ve ever argued with (quite the accomplishment). I also think that you have the biggest ego and the worst reading comprehension problem (2 more huge accomplishments).

                      Allow me to deconstruct your argumentation style. You shout in bold all the Non Sequiturs you can find. Someone dares to disagree or point out the massive logical fallacies you come up with. You respond by doing one or a number of things.

                      1. Snicker.
                      2. Link to a non sequitur.
                      3. Call them names.
                      4. Call them a liar (when they only committed the sin of disagreeing with you).

                      None of these are an argument of any kind. I will await your response and simply number which of your own personal fallacies you use to “argue” against me.

                    6. Called out, the liar confesses

                      I never said you called for a tax raise, now did I? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait.

                      Many times. Starting here:

                      need a 61% tax increase… just to pay its own share…

                      Let’s see how full of it you are: Are those terms prog talk or not? Do any people except progs talk about “needing a tax increase” or “paying their fair share”?

                      Finishing here.

                      So you directly deny that “need a tax increase” and “pay its own share” are prog talk?

                      Now you say “progs” do NOT always want tax increases!
                      You are one sick fuck.

                    7. Wow, just wow. Prog talk doesn’t mean you called for a tax raise, just that you talk like a prog.

                      Now you say “progs” do NOT always want tax increases!

                      I’m not even sure I can look far enough into the derp to see where you get that from my statement. It’s like talking to a non-carbon based life form.

                    8. I think I understand how your brain works. You see someone disagree with you and you get VERY emotional. You then throw that person into the part of your brain where it stores everyone who has ever disagreed with you. Then you confuse who said what (cause you’re so emotional about it). You then see statements in words that no-one else sees (because they aren’t there). Then, finally, you claim I said something I didn’t.

                      My, any psychologist would have a field day with this.

                    9. I never said you called for a tax raise, now did I? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait.

                      Almost missed this one

                      The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share..

                      This… is coming from someone who calls themselves a “libertarian”…

                      I’m sorry, how does confiscation and “paying your fair share” rhetoric square with NAP?

                      One sick fuck
                      Typical of the Paulista Cult.
                      And a liar

                    10. You committed 2, 3, and 4. Congrats on proving me right.

                      You didn’t call for a tax raise. You said it would be needed. You used prog talk and that doesn’t square with NAP.

                      Of course, you will sit there in self-righteousness and think yourself right. But that belief is not falsifiable.

                    11. You didn’t call for a tax raise. You said it would be needed.

                      (laughing)

                    12. (laughing)

                      Close enough to #1 that I will count it.

                      The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase

                    13. ace_m82
                      You didn’t call for a tax raise. You said it would be needed.

                      (laughing)

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5383344

                      The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase

                      (laughing) That’s what proves Obama is lying about fair share taxes. But you say I’m a prog for proving it. Rand Paul, almost as crazy, says 14.5% would be a tax INCREASE on the wealthy (who now average 23%) Does that make me a prog too?

                      One more time. Average income tax rates, of AGI
                      Obama’s $50,000 truck driver — 8%
                      Millionaires and billionaires – 23%

                    14. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase

                      Prog talk. I haven’t discussed your rates at all so they’re nothing but Non Sequiturs. Try to remember who you’re arguing against next time.

    5. Well the allcaps and bold sure convinced me. But for those who are less reasonable might I suggest more exclamation marks!!! They really work!!!

      1. JFree|6.18.15 @ 3:15PM|#
        Well the allcaps and bold sure convinced me. But for those who are less reasonable might I suggest more exclamation marks!!! They really work!!!

        I favor the links to original sources as undeniable proof.
        The boldface hopes to cut through all the tribal loyalty and bullshit.

    6. The plan eliminates FICA. Your truck driver paying his 9% rate excludes the extra 15% of FICA he’d be paying as well as the $50k deduction for his wife and family.

      1. The Last American Hero
        The plan eliminates FICA.

        Over a trillion a year? Read it again.

        Your truck driver paying his 9% rate excludes the extra 15% of FICA he’d be paying as well as the $50k deduction for his wife and family.

        Read it again. A 50k deduction make it even more fucking crazy — if it existed.
        You can’t even READ the truck driver’s rate correctly and her FICA tax is 6.2%
        8% + 6.2% is 14.2% — so 14.5% is a tax increase on the math alone.
        The rich now subsidize 38% of that, which means she’d need a 61% tax INCREASE just to pay her own share — which ain’t nobody proposing — and you expect a tax CUT?

        He lies about the revenue loss. lies about spending cuts and promises to balance the budget in five ears. Even his Dad is not THAT crazy. He MAY be as crazy as Cato’s Social Security privatization. Or Medicare vouchers.

        This is what happens when we combine tribalism with anti-gummint hysteria and phony slogans about free markets with a lot of snarling. He’s kissing ass of Cruz’s crazy supporters, at best.

  26. First and foremost, must nick Gillespie pepper his articles with juvenile pop culture references? Yes, nick, we all know you’ve watched ever South Park episode three times already. Can we move on?

    My father-in-law made me take the child proof code off of the Fox Business Channel so when I turned on the tv I got to watch Stuart Varney get an old man hard-on for rand paul and this flat tax proposal. The argument turned– as it should– to whether or not a tax system that gave a huge tax increase to the poor and an even bigger tax cut to the rich was fair. The idea, I guess, is that a flat tax would be easier to enforce and a sop to the rich because “they’d have to pay it.” To which I wondered. Couldn’t you enforce a tax system that would tax rich people at 99% of their income and enforce it? Why is enforceability a talking point for those that want to get the government off their back. Eh, these are the types of things I think of when I watch FBN.

    You guys can help me out because I think there may be some Flat Tax supporters here in the comments. I’ve had trouble getting Flat Tax supporters to tell me who would pay more in taxes under that system than the one we have now. If everyone is paying less in taxes and we’re spending the same amount of money how exactly does this work out?

    1. If everyone is paying less in taxes and we’re spending the same amount of money how exactly does this work out?

      Incredibly, supporters of flat taxes also think the government should cut spending. I know that’s crazy talk to a guy who calls himself ‘american socialist,’ though.

      1. Incredibly, supporters of flat taxes also think the government should cut spending.

        (laughing at you). This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.
        The ones who “think” the craziest are the ones cheered by the dumbfucks.
        So we get 40 years of promises, and zero achievement, in a country which is majority libertarian (Nolan Chart libertarian). Except at the local level where thousands of elected Nolan libertarians are achieving thousands of micro victories.

        But, hey, we can achieve a free society without ever electing anyone, if we’re pure enough!
        What’s the difference between a free society and a libertarian society? (lol)

        1. Yea, how dare libertarians suggest cuts to spending! This tax plan will never get off the ground and I’m pretty sure Rand Paul knows it. But there is very basic math that shows that debt has ballooned to unsupportable levels and even an article on that very subject here at Reason posted today.

          Debt is over 100% of the GDP in real terms. That is not sustainable. The size of government is not sustainable. Whether that wins elections or not or sells with your Nolan Chart libertarians doesn’t matter.

          1. Brochettaward|6.18.15 @ 12:53PM|#
            Yea, how dare libertarians suggest cuts to spending!

            It’s when they lie through their teeth … for loyal cultists, proven here.

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

            This tax plan will never get off the ground and I’m pretty sure Rand Paul knows it.

            So being a viable candidate means …. having NO fucking solutions? (OMG)

            But there is very basic math that shows that debt has ballooned to unsupportable levels and even an article on that very subject here at Reason posted today.

            (yawn) If libertarians have no fucking solution, what the hell good are we? Why should we emulate Chicken Little?

            Debt is over 100% of the GDP in real terms. That is not sustainable. The size of government is not sustainable. Whether that wins elections or not or sells with your Nolan Chart libertarians doesn’t matter

            The anti-gummint screechers BRAG that winning elections is inferior to ideological purity … ridicule the notion of appealing to our own. MAJORITY … and are PROUD of being rejected by 91% of libertarians!!

            Readers, can you see why we’ve been failing to advance liberty for 40 years … despite having a majority of voters?

            Is it reasonable to wonder if the biggest threat to libertarianism might just be … libertarians? (the anti-gummint ones)

            1. The anti-gummint screechers BRAG that winning elections is inferior to ideological purity…

              Says the guy who rails against anyone whose last name is “Paul”…

              Pot, meet kettle.

              1. ace_m82|6.18.15 @ 3:39PM|#
                The anti-gummint screechers BRAG that winning elections is inferior to ideological purity…

                Says the guy who rails against anyone whose last name is “Paul”…

                ummm, that’s WHY I ridicule him.
                And now you.

                Pot, meet kettle.

                (snicker) When have I defended ideological purity over winning elections?

                1. that’s WHY I ridicule him

                  The Rs will vote for Rs and he has an R next to his name. That’s good for at least, what, 46% in a general election? Plus other people who will vote for him.

                  When have I defended ideological purity over winning elections?

                  Every time you attack anyone with a “Paul” next to their name. He’s the most electable ‘libertarianish” person out there. What’s your plan for winning an election?

                  I don’t even want to defend him. I’m not a big fan. You’re just very wrong here.

                  1. ace_m82|6.18.15 @ 4:52PM|#
                    that’s WHY I ridicule him

                    The Rs will vote for Rs and he has an R next to his name.

                    Like they turned out for Romney? His tax bullshit will further destroy any hopes for the nomination.

                    When have I defended ideological purity over winning elections?

                    Every time you attack anyone with a “Paul” next to their name. He’s the most electable ‘libertarianish” person out there

                    (laughing) he insults women, is anti-abortion, a homophobe, STUPIDLY turns off the same liberals he’s trying to recruit …you just made the purity argument you denied!. … and his tax plan is TOTAL bullshit, as proven here

                    https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

                    and here

                    https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

                    Keep showing the mentality of the Paulista Cult!!

                    Read me on this page. I could destroy his campaign on my own. And will if necessary. Just another battle in a 50-year defense of liberty.

                    1. Like they turned out for Romney?

                      I said 46%. What did Romney get? He’s the bottom of the barrel so he got around the least possible.

                      he insults women, is anti-abortion, a homophobe, STUPIDLY turns off the same liberals

                      How did insult women? If the tiny human is alive, then abortion violates NAP, and he’s not really trying to recruit liberals (true believers), but those who want liberty.

                      Read me on this page. I could destroy his campaign on my own. And will if necessary.

                      So, I guess I need to add in “delusions of grandeur” to your list of ailments. You should probably stop at this point and find out what a Non Sequitur is before you continue.

                    2. he insults women, is anti-abortion, a homophobe, STUPIDLY turns off the same liberals

                      ace_m82 … How did insult women?If the tiny human is alive, then abortion violates NAP, and he’s not really trying to recruit liberals (true believers), but those who want liberty

                      (laughing)

                      He insulted two female newswomen who were interviewing him, literallty told one to shush. It was all the news for a few days. But extreme socons never leave their tribal cocoons.

                      For example, when asked we he marriage equality, he actually shooshed one, like fucking Archie Bunker. Said she was editorializing. (lol) He’s hiding his violation of the Constitution and of NAP, along with other lies and assorted bigotry.

                      One more time. On what authority do you reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty? Thus rejecting NAP

                      One mire time. Why do you insist that our government may deny or disparage my Liberty, if it would save the life of some stranger in China? While talking about NAP?

                      One more time. Do you know what unalienable means?

                    3. He insulted two female newswomen who were interviewing him, literallty told one to shush.

                      I insult stupid people too. Also, I insult trolls.

                      He’s hiding his violation of the Constitution and of NAP

                      I didn’t know that “not a Federal issue” as a violation of NAP, or the Constitution.

                      One more time. On what authority do you reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty? Thus rejecting NAP

                      If the little human is alive then it is you who is rejecting NAP. It’s “non aggression”, not “I can do with my body whatever I want, even killing other humans” (even if they reside inside of you at the time). So, once again, Non Sequitur.

                      You don’t care, and I’m not in the mood for an abortion discussion with the non-carbon based life form right now.

                      One more time. Do you know what unalienable means?

                      Cannot be taken away. Non Sequitur.

                    4. ace_m82|6.20.15 @ 4:57PM|#
                      He’s hiding his violation of the Constitution and of NAP

                      I didn’t know that “not a Federal issue” as a violation of NAP, or the Constitution

                      You know nothing as proven here. 9th Amendment.

                      One more time. On what authority do you reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty? Thus rejecting NAP

                      If the little human is alive

                      Umm, the woman is alive too! duh Your first of three blunders

                      One more time. Do you know what unalienable means?

                      Cannot be taken away. Non Sequitur

                      BINGO YOU just agreed that the woman’s right to liberty cannot be taken away!, which is your second blunder … and that exposes your lame “non sequitur” excuse as the third blunder.

                      Your decision, but you’re way out of your league here. Every time you initiate aggression, you make a public fool of yourself. Your flip-flops on “unalienable” — directly contradicting yourself — is also a failure in elementary thinking.

                    5. 9th Amendment.

                      I didn’t know ithe 9th covered murder (killing an innocent live human being).

                      Umm, the woman is alive too! duh Your first of three blunders

                      So is the giant who swallows the dwarf. Your attempt to defend murder on the “it’s in my body” is blown apart by this, something you simply won’t even attempt to argue against.

                      BINGO YOU just agreed that the woman’s right to liberty cannot be taken away!

                      Yep. You have the right to do anything except violate NAP.

                      Your decision, but you’re way out of your league here

                      Appeal to authority. I’ve made Alan Keyes look foolish (proof, if you want it).

                      Every time you initiate aggression, you make a public fool of yourself.

                      The “authority” has no idea what aggression means and makes a fool of himself.

                      Your flip-flops on “unalienable” — directly contradicting yourself

                      You have no right to murder. You have the right to do anything except violate NAP. Totally logically consistent. Whereas, you refuse to answer my giant swallows dwarf response which shows that you are the one who has no idea what logical consistency is.

                      Pride comes before destruction.

                    6. Social conservative humiliates himself again! Part 1 of 2

                      9th Amendment.

                      I didn’t know the 9th covered murder (killing an innocent live human being).

                      (lol)The Ninth Amendment says it’s not murder! And so did you
                      Let’s explore your moral hypocrisy and duplicity ? again
                      .

                      1) *You* agree that unalienable rights can never be taken away.(I suckered you into that)

                      2) *You* run away from the question, On what authority do you reject a woman’s equal, *unalienable* and/or God-Given right to liberty, thus violating NAP?.

                      3) *You* refuse to answer, Why do you insist that our government may deny or disparage my Liberty, if it would save the life of some stranger in China? While talking about NAP?

                      Inconvenient to your extreme moral hypocrisy?

                      Umm, the woman is alive too! duh Your first of three blunders

                      So is the giant who swallows the dwarf.

                      ****Now you claim an unalienable right to swallow dwarfs! (bwaaaaa haaaa) ****

                      Your attempt to defend murder on the “it’s in my body” is blown apart by this,

                      1) Blown apart by your wacky unalienable right to swallow dwarfs?
                      2) Shame on you. I never said such a thing.
                      3) One more time for the morally challenged: On what authority do you reject a woman’s equal, *unalienable* and/or God-Given right to liberty, thus violating NAP?.

                      continued

                    7. Social conservative humiliates himself! Part 2

                      ace: something you simply won’t even attempt to argue against.

                      OMG! Even more pathetic a lie.

                      mike: Your flip-flops on “unalienable” — directly contradicting yourself

                      You have no right to murder.

                      You did it again

                      ace You have the right to do anything except violate NAP. Totally logically consistent.

                      Logically consistent when YOU agree unalienable rights cannot be taken away. (OMG)

                      Whereas, you refuse to answer my giant swallows dwarf response which shows that you are the one who has no idea what logical consistency is.

                      You actually REPEAT that swallowing dwarfs is an unalienable right? (OMG) Same thing I said the first time you asked the wacko question.

                      In high school, you’ll learn that no rights are absolute, when they infringe on other fundamental rights. These are well know to educated people:
                      1) You have no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
                      2) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

                      The rest of us learned about competing or conflicting rights in high school … and the ONLY way to resolve them.

                      How can ANYONE be manipulated by an unalienable right to swallow dwarfs?
                      Why are so many of you so eager to be manipulated?
                      When do you stop stalking me?

                    8. OMG! Even more pathetic a lie.

                      You actually REPEAT that swallowing dwarfs is an unalienable right?

                      You have yet to try to argue against it. You simply misstated what I said. Google “Keynes misstates say’s law” for another example of it. It’s called a “Straw Man” argument. Another fallacy, congrats.

                      You did it again

                      You have no right to murder. You have no right to violate NAP. Logical consistency.

                      In high school, you’ll learn that no rights are absolute, when they infringe on other fundamental rights.

                      If that’s what your high school taught you, they used a poor definition of the word “rights”. The only right you have is to be free from aggression. All other (so-called) “rights” stem from this.

                      Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

                      Your “right” to stab your body ends at the tip of the tiny human’s brain.

                    9. DEFENDS swallowing dwarfs as a fundamental right

                      ace_m82|6.24.15 @ 12:25PM|#
                      You actually REPEAT that swallowing dwarfs is an unalienable right?

                      You have yet to try to argue against it.

                      (lol) Why would I have to?
                      I ridiculed it several times .. all in boldface

                      And the thread shows you admitting that unalienable rights can never be taken away (yawn)

                      So keep repeating your same wackiness, over and over and over.

                    10. Wow, dumbass, the “you have yet to argue against it” refers to your:

                      OMG! Even more pathetic a lie.

                      Which is to my charge that you won’t bother trying to argue against what happens AFTER the giant swallows the dwarf.

                      Your assertion: It’s not murder if you kill a living human inside you.

                      My thought experiment: A dwarf volunteers to be swallowed by a giant. You would then have to say that the giant can kill the dwarf that is inside him/her as it is inside the giant’s body.

                      Your response? Obfuscation. Typical… Can’t win an argument? Deny its existence and/or ridicule.

                      BTW, my argument is much more fleshed out for people who can follow it, but you haven’t even risen to that yet. You’re pathetic. I actually feel sorry for you.

                    11. And the thread shows you admitting that unalienable rights can never be taken away (yawn)

                      You have no right to violate NAP. You assume you have the right to do whatever you want with your body, but you know that’s not true. You cannot violate NAP with your body.

                      Unalienable rights cannot be taken away. You assume that means you also have the right to do whatever you want within your own body. That doesn’t follow. What you have is the right to do everything except aggress against another live human being. If that live human being is inside you, you cannot kill them, whether you are a giant swallowing a dwarf or a mother with a child in her womb.

                    12. The Ninth Amendment says it’s not murder!

                      Where?

                      *You* agree that unalienable rights can never be taken away.(I suckered you into that)

                      Nope, I’ve always known that. You’re just too prideful to see it.

                      *You* run away from the question, On what authority do you reject a woman’s equal, *unalienable* and/or God-Given right to liberty, thus violating NAP?.

                      OK, let me answer it directly, as you simply can’t fathom my answer. No-one has the right to murder. No-one has the right to kill another live human who happens to be inside them. So, this is a non sequitur (it doesn’t follow); I don’t deny anyone any rights they actually have. you have no right to violate NAP.

                      Why do you insist that our government may deny or disparage my Liberty, if it would save the life of some stranger in China? While talking about NAP?

                      I’m an anarchist. I do nothing of the sort. You can’t comprehend words strung into sentences that violate your preconceived notions.

                      Now you claim an unalienable right to swallow dwarfs!

                      Are you still so dull? If the giant swallows the dwarf, even if the dwarf consents to it, the giant has no right to kill the dwarf once it’s in him/her. Ergo, your argument is wrong. You have no right to murder.

                      Shame on you. I never said such a thing.

                      No, you didn’t. I used a “thought experiment” to show you’re wrong.

      2. Brochettaward
        Incredibly, supporters of flat taxes also think the government should cut spending. I know that’s crazy talk to a guy who calls himself ‘american socialist,’ though.

        This is about TAXES, dumbass … and it would be a HUGE tax increase on the middle class … or a 75% spending cut. You also a Birther? Space aliens in Roswell, NM?

        And the spending cuts rand says would be needed — in the WSJ — are a massive fucking lie. But the Journal says income tax revenues skyrocketed after the Reagan tax cuts!!! (lol)

        1. You compared one form of taxation to a flat tax that would replace multiple forms of tax. There’s an idiot here, but it isn’t me.

          1. Brochettaward|6.18.15 @ 1:16PM
            You compared one form of taxation to a flat tax that would replace multiple forms of tax. There’s an idiot here, but it isn’t me.

            (snicker) It’s MATH. Junior high level!
            And fully documented from original sources, plus junior high math.

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

            Anti-gummint libertarians are killing us … just like the Inquisition which destroyed Christianity for so long.

            Birthers aren’t the only ones in severe denial.

        2. But the Journal says income tax revenues skyrocketed after the Reagan tax cuts!!! (lol

          Didn’t they? Didn’t revenue from the top income tax earners go up following the Reagan tax cuts?

          1. BiMonSciFiCon|6.18.15 @ 2:20PM|#
            But the Journal says income tax revenues skyrocketed after the Reagan tax cuts!!! (lol)

            Didn’t they?

            They essentially broke even. averaging a tiny $5 billion average gain ,,,, which was greater than the increased capital gains revenues. So the net corporate and personal income taxes never caught up at all. Here’s all the proof, which is highly nuanced, about Tax Quacks on our side of the spectrum.

            http://www.libertyissues.com/quacks.htm

            Didn’t revenue from the top income tax earners go up following the Reagan tax cuts?

            Yes, from capital gains taxes only, Do you know the stock market had collapsed by 70%? The recovery THERE provided the MORE than the net gain in income taxes.

            The revenue explosion came entirely from FICA taxes, which were increased SIX times.

            Don’t read this wrong. The Kennedy and Regan tax cuts, which were identical, launched the only two postwar booms. But lying about the facts is dangerous.

            For example, it’s also bullshit that postwar spending cuts contributed to a “postwar boom.” — an outrageous lie promoted by some on the right (including Reason).

            1. Correction. Personal and corporate income tax revenues never caught up with the Reagan tax cuts as of 1989. The chart shows that but doesn’t state it.

    2. I’ve had trouble getting Flat Tax supporters to tell me who would pay more in taxes under that system than the one we have now.

      Sadly, your obsessive fixation on income quintiles will make this difficult to explain, but let me try to give you some hints. And just so we aren’t chasing multiple targets, let’s focus on what we know about Rand Paul’s plan.

      The poor will not see a massive tax increase, since

      1) this eliminates the payroll tax. That taxes even the poor at around 12.4% (Including both the employer and employee’s cut) for social security for the first $115,000 or so. It also includes an additional 3% which has no maximum. This ~15% tax rate is a terribly regressive tax.

      2) Each adult keeps their first $20,000 of income untaxed. If they have children, they get another $5,000 untaxed per child.

      3) The plan maintains the Earned Income Tax Credit. This credit is paid to taxpayers based on their total income, phasing out as they get more income.

      Leaving out #3 for a minute, a single parent with one child who earned $50,000 would get a $25,000 exemption and pay $3,625 on the rest. Under the current system, those poor would pay $7500 on the $50k. The remaining would be taxed at their normal rate. They deduct their Head of Household ($9250) and Personal Exemptions ($4000) to get a taxable income of $29250 – taxed at around $3700. So under the current system they pay $11,200 compared to $3,625

      1. Overt
        Sadly, your obsessive fixation on income quintiles will make this difficult to explain, but let me try to give you some hints

        One more Paulista Cultist! Proven here:

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

        And this rubs it in

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

        But if we BELIEVE ….

        1. Mr Hihn,

          Not sure what you are crowing about. Are you interested in discussing your claims or just posting non sequiturs? If the former, please answer the question I posted above and we can proceed to talk about this.

          1. Not sure what you are crowing about.

            Follow the links and check the sources.

            Are you interested in discussing your claims or just posting non sequiturs?

            (snicker)

            If the former, please answer the question I posted above and we can proceed to talk about this

            I’ve answered your question … mostly your math confusion … within five minutes of this reply And fully documented Rand Paul’s massive bullshit here.

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

            Any more questions of non sequitors?

          2. He isn’t interested in discussing. He wants to call people ‘batshit crazy’, as if he invented such a clever term.

            Once again some leftie pops up and shows everyone how just plain mean and nasty that side is. I’m sorry for him, but Man…what a horrible person. He actually makes me miss Tony a bit.

            1. Pulseguy|6.19.15 @ 12:00PM|#
              He wants to call people ‘batshit crazy’, as if he invented such a clever term.

              I never invented the term. And Pulseguy IS bat-shit crazy.

              Once again some leftie

              Proof: bat-shit crazy! (snicker)

            2. He wants to call people ‘batshit crazy’

              WHICH people (other than you after you lied)

            3. Yeah, he sounds a lot like my 15 year old having a melt down.

      2. This is complicated by the Earned Income Tax Credit. That would net the person around $3,250 if my reading is correct (it has a complicated sliding income schedule that I don’t want to calculate). So, basically that person pays no Income Tax today (give or take a few hundred) but pays significant payroll taxes and would pay no taxes at all in the Rand Paul Plan.

        So who is really going to pay here? Based on the elimination of deductions, and payroll tax, this will be spread among a large portion of the US across multiple income quintiles. It isn’t clear whether this is supposed to be a revenue neutral tax or not, and my bet is that they say that they will increase the tax base. But those issues aside, you can expect tax increases for:

        Single or Married no children, non homeowners who have lots of tax deductions and income over $200,000.

        People who have “Unearned Income”- i.e. income that was not earned by business or employment. Unearned Income is not subject to Payroll Taxes, but some types ARE subject to income tax. For example, there are various Life Insurance schemes (Whole Life, VUL) that you get tax free. The interesting thing is that these schemes are well known as tax shelters, so the people optimizing their saving to get tax free income (generally upper middle class to rich) will take a hit. Many people mix this income with income from 401ks and pensions to keep taxable income low and “appear” to be in lower brackets while they live quite well.

        1. Additional people who will see a lift in taxes:

          Companies that made no major purchases this year may see higher overall taxes. Paul’s plan eliminates depreciation. So a company making a major purchase deducts the entire expense in the year they made a purchase. If that goes past their revenue, they won’t pay taxes one year, but won’t get “credit” for the amount over revenue on following years. I am unclear from Paul’s plan on how financing will affect this. Do you deduct the entire value of your purchase in year one, or only the payments you made? If the former, it means that startup companies will enjoy great tax savings (as they invest in startup infrastructure), but their tax bill will ramp up more quickly on following years.

          So, again, it will be hard to quantify this just by income quintiles. A large number of people in lower and middle quintiles are actually quite well off since they take tax free income that doesn’t show in the usual statistics. You will see taxes spread from workers to people deriving most of their income from investments.

          1. You are wasting your time.

            He is immune to basic arithmetic.

            1. Dave Ss
              You are wasting your time.
              He is immune to basic arithmetic.

              Which part confuses you, Dave?

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379551

              Or here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

              Be specific. No ad hominems. No ignoring full documentation with Birther-level denial.
              It’s not really true. The universe does not disappear if you close your eyes, even VERY VERY tightly.

              1. I haven’t seen you try to figure what hypothetical people would actually pay under

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379145

                Though I think he was figuring a self employed person.

                I’ll do it again, but this time for someone employed by a company.
                Hypothetical single mom with 1 kid earning 50,000 a year.

                50,000 – 9250 (head of household) – 4,000 (personal exemption) = 36,750 taxable
                36,750 * (10% and 15% brackets for head of household) = 4,855 – 1,000 (child tax credit) = 3,855 owed.

                FICA = 50,000 * 7.2% = 3,850

                3,855 (income tax) + 3,850 (FICA) = 7,705 tax owed and an effective tax rate of 15.4% on 50,000 of earnings.

                Under the Paul plan
                50,000 – 20,000 exemption for mom – 5,000 exemption for kid = 25,000 taxable
                25,000 * 14.5% = 3,625 income tax owed and an effective tax rate of 7.25% on 50,000 of earnings.

                I’m not gonna even bother with the EITC, first because I’ve never had to calculate it, and second because Paul apparently plans to leave it alone.

                So tell me, what bizarre world do you live in where 3,625 (Paul plan) is greater than 7,705 (How it is now)?

                1. I’ll do it again, but this time for someone employed by a company.
                  Hypothetical single mom with 1 kid earning 50,000 a year.

                  None of those calculations bear any remote relationship to how taxes are calculated.

                  So tell me, what bizarre world do you live in where 3,625 (Paul plan) is greater than 7,705 (How it is now)?

                  The math is bullshit. One more time:
                  When the rich subsidize 38% of then entire core middle class share of taxes, a flat tax or fair tax is mathematically impossible. The biggest rate cuts go to the rich … so who then subsidizes the middle class, Venezuelans?

                  And if the middle class loses its massive subsidies, then …..

                  You don’t need math, just common sense. How doe we go to a flat tax without massive revenue losses or a massive tax increase on the middle class. PLUS a half-trillion per year in FICA losses.

                  Umm, how does Social Security and Medicare get funded?
                  Medicare gets a quarter trillion annual subsidy from … income taxes! So if we increase that subsidy to 0.8 trillion from income taxes … then what?

                  1. Uh, those calculations are exactly how a simple return is calculated.
                    Apart from itemized deductions which most people making under 50,000 don’t actually use, and if they do, mortgage interest and charitable giving are the most commonly utilized and have the greatest effect on AGI. They would be staying, though possibly modified in some presently unknown way.

                    As for the rest, I believe we usually say, Fuck you cut spending.

                    Identify wants and needs, take an axe to the wants.

                    A whole bunch of market and incentive distorting corporate welfare goes bye bye.

                    He hasn’t said it yet, but the logical conclusion for SSI/Medicare is to become fully means tested for people retiring a certain number of years after enactment, and partially means tested for existing retirees and those retiring within a certain number of years enactment. Provided Congress holds course, in 30 or 40 years they eventually becomes actual, honest to goodness safety nets for the indigent, rather than the budget busters and cans to be kicked down the road they are today.

                    Further, freeing up a significant amount of capital that used to be misdirected by Congress would have a positive effect on general economic growth.

                    The 14.5% rate may be a bit low, but it allows room for negotiation when presented to Congress. Even at 20% its still a boon for most taxpayers under 100k, provided the exemptions remain unchanged.

                    1. As for the rest, I believe we usually say, Fuck you cut spending.

                      (snicker) Fuck you, by how much?

                      He says we can cut taxes by 75%, on top of today’s deficit, and cut spending enough to balance the budget in only five years.

                      Do the math. That means cutting spending by over 75%
                      Medicare now runs a quarter-trillion deficit, subsidized by income taxes, on top; of the repealed FICA tax. Medicare alone spends more than all of Rand’s remaining revenues … just to put it in perspective for you goobers.

                      “Just cut spending,” says the goobers. (laughing) Where?
                      It’s a s crazy as his Dads plan to shift the entire federal tax burden away from the rich.

                      Or Cato’s plan to divert 50% of Social Security to private savings, “paid for from the remaining half” ….. but it’s up to Congress to figure the details (OMG)
                      That’s like saying we can steal half your income, but you can offset that from the remaining half. (OMG)

                      Rand sat down, created a tax plan for the maximum PR value alone.
                      The dumbass even AGREES with Buffett and Obama on tax fairness!!
                      Welcome to 1984.

                    2. None of those calculations bear any remote relationship to how taxes are calculated.

                      Uh, those calculations are exactly how a simple return is calculated

                      (snicker) there is no deduction for head of household. And you fucked up the FICA tax rate too.

                    3. The standard deduction for head of household in 2015 is $9,250

                      Second bullet point, straight from the den of evil itself.
                      http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroo…..djustments

                      Yes I did, by a whole 0.05% or $25
                      I did the math for that while awaiting respawns in Heroes of the Storm. Deaths early in game only give you 10-15 seconds to proof read.

                    4. The standard deduction for head of household in 2015 is $9,250

                      I appreciate your correction.

                      And you fucked up the FICA tax rate too.
                      Yes I did, by a whole 0.05% or $25

                      7.2% – 6.2% is 1%

                      So you fucked it up twice now.

                      http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html

                      only give you 10-15 seconds to proof read.

                      But you were proofing to a bullshit rate of 7.2%
                      Do you have a job? With FICA withholding?

                    5. The math was done on 7.7 rather than 7.65 which is why I said off by 0.05%

                      Writing 7.2…wet brain fart.

                    6. The math was done on 7.7 rather than 7.65 which is why I said off by 0.05%

                      Okay, even dumber than we thought.

                      Writing 7.2…wet brain fart.

                      (lol) You didn’t just write it wrong according to … you.
                      You based trashmouth thuggery on a brain fart????
                      How totally …. adult.

          2. Overt
            Paul’s plan eliminates depreciation. So a company making a major purchase deducts the entire expense in the year they made a purchase. If that goes past their revenue, they won’t pay taxes one year, but won’t get “credit” for the amount over revenue on following years

            You pulled that out of your ass so fast it still has shit hanging on it.
            (the lack of carryover credit)

            DaveSs swallowed it, but that’s a negative endorsement.

        2. So who is really going to pay here? Based on the elimination of deductions, and payroll tax, this will be spread among a large portion of the US across multiple income quintiles

          Your math sucks. Fully documented here (again)

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379551

        3. Overtt
          you can expect tax increases for: Single or Married no children, non homeowners who have lots of tax deductions and income over $200,000.

          OMG they pay 20-25% now and 14.5% would be a tax increase?
          Are you really Warren Buffett?

  27. I turned the channel I started watching the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. And it struck me. Maybe we could get the money from Narnia! That Aslan looks like he’s got a stash somewhere. It’s time to get fantasy creatures and the economic constructs to start paying their fair share. Everyone, to their broom closet!

    1. Your murderous philosophy is more fairy tale than anything CS Lewis ever wrote.

      +1 New Soviet Man

      1. The Last American Hero|6.18.15 @ 7:09PM|#
        Your murderous philosophy is more fairy tale than anything CS Lewis ever wrote.

        I’ve been watching American Socialist for several months. I could have missed it, but have never seen him/her argue for or defend STATE socialism. Do you know the difference, or are you actually The Last American Dumbass? Or please tell me what I missed.

        Even Ayn Rand defended the hippie communes. Said their only mistake was thinking they had to become farmers, which has since been proven true.

  28. Subliminal Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok jokes, Nick? Seriously? You’re older than fucking Hillary Clinton!

  29. I’m not sure how the IRS is destroyed in this plan. It sounds like there are still a bunch of deductions. So they’re presumably done by the Treasury Dept, they would still need a lot of similar powers, wouldn’t they?

    1. Shhhh. Reality is banned by the dumbfuck wing of the libertarian cult.
      Led by Ron Paul!

    2. The plan isn’t perfect. Acknowledging any deductions likely will leave the core of an enforcement agency and likely lead to future additions just like in the past. But if this actually somehow happened, you would still have a significantly reduced tax burden, and a drastically reduced enforcement agency with far less means to screw people.

      None of it is politically realistic.

      1. . But if this actually somehow happened, you would still have a significantly reduced tax burden, and a drastically reduced enforcement agency with far less means to screw people.

        And a MASSIVE increase in federal debt. Fully documented:

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5379144

    3. Any flat (or flatter) tax will never destroy the IRS because it still is based on how much income you have. It will hopefully put a dent in the amount of money poured into the black hole of tax accountants and related parasitic industries.

    1. Where do I send your trophy?

  30. Also, blow up the federal budget and start over. No mandatory appropriations. None. The new baseline is zero. Reset everything to zero at the start of each year. Everything. Every year. Then, if a legislator wants to allocate some money to something, he starts by justifying it. Obviously there wouldn’t be any problem keeping a program operating if it’s wildly popular, like, say, social security or the military.

    1. Yeah, fuck getting elected. Just pander to the anti-gummint crazies!!!
      They have orgasms when anyone “proposes” fucking stupidity.
      Crazier than Birthers.
      Thank you Reason for destroying the movement, captive of the Paulista Cult.

  31. STILL more proof!!!
    Rand Paul is fucking crazy.
    Crazier even than his father!

    Total revenue cuts claimed at $2 trillion first decade.
    Includes 50% cut in FICA taxes.
    FICA tax revenue estimate for 2015 over $1 trillion.
    Proof here (page 47)

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B…..14-TAB.pdf

    Ummm, that means a half trillion revenue cut per year. For 10 years.
    Can Paulista Cultists multiply that times 10????
    Is it $5 trillion for FICA alone?
    Is $ 5 trillion more than $2 trillion?

    (If not a decade, the normal assumption, then over a 50% spending cut per year!)

    But if we BELIEVE enough … and click our heels hard enough ….
    (laughing at the anti-gummint retards)

    This research took me roughly 5 minutes. But I’m not inventing a libertarian moment as a fundraising fraud.

    His Dad says we should repeal the income tax entirely, replace it with NOTHING … and run the entire federal government on FICA TAXES. Because this is a libertarian moment, right???

    Copyright 2015 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights reserved and defended

    1. Rand Paul is fucking crazy.
      Crazier even than his father!

      Double the Ad Hominem, double the fun…

      His Dad says we should repeal the income tax entirely, replace it with NOTHING … and run the entire federal government on FICA TAXES.

      And… how does that matter, again? Is Rand, Ron? They look a lot different to me…

      1. His Dad says we should repeal the income tax entirely, replace it with NOTHING … and run the entire federal government on FICA TAXES.

        And… how does that matter, again?

        Ron lies about the remaining revenues., while you defend a 100% tax cut for the rich? What could possibly go wrong?

        http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04…..h-the-irs/
        To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

        Never mentions FICA which would reveal his scam. Means repealing all federal operations, including the military, keeping only entitlement for seniors … or repealing Social Security and Medicare. with 60% cuts of everything else. More bullshit for his cult of puppets, iIndeed as crazy as Rand’s tax “plan”

        Thanks for again revealing the mentality of the Paulista Cult!!! But are readers happy that your ilk represents libertarianism to the masses?

        1. Child, I haven’t defended his plan yet, just pointed out your logical fallacies. I have defended no tax cut here at all.

          I understand and follow NAP. I’m a very good libertarian. You shout nonsense.

          (You may indeed have a point about the specifics of the FICA math. I really don’t care to look it up. You’d be a useful idiot if you were only useful.)

      2. His Dad says we should repeal the income tax entirely, replace it with NOTHING … and run the entire federal government on FICA TAXES.

        And… how does that matter, again?

        Umm, you think a 100% tax cut for only the rich is not incredibly stupid?
        You discredit the Paulista Cult mentality much better than I ever could!

        1. I believe in a 100% tax cut to everyone. In fact, Paul the Elder once said about the (nearly) 50% who pay no income taxes that this means “we’re half-way there”.

          But don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred. Keep spouting nonsense and claiming victory…

          1. This is why Paulista Cult gets laughed at

            Umm, you think a 100% tax cut for only the rich is not incredibly stupid?

            I believe in a 100% tax cut to everyone

            Runs away from the question.
            They pick the biggest tax cut anyone ever proposes, the bigger the better, ignore that the spending cuts are never stated (which would destroy the plan). And if anyone says the proposal is crazy, they’re called a prog … or co-conspiring with statists.

            Rand Paul increases the deficit to 2.5 trillion (3.3 trillion of current revenue for perspective). Then promises to cut spending to balance the budget in five years …. but Medicare and Social Security ALONE spend more that the remaining revenues. So if we BELIEVE it can happen, it will! And only a prog would ridicule such a pla, righr?

            Oh yeah, Rand also agrees with lefties Obama and Buffet that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes!

            One of many reasons the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of Libertarians.

            1. Runs away from the question.

              No, I just don’t answer Non Sequiturs.

              They pick the biggest tax cut anyone ever proposes, the bigger the better, ignore that the spending cuts are never stated

              I did last time; I will reiterate. I call for a 100% spending cut. That’s a hell of a lot more important than a tax cut. Government spending is a tax increase either now or in the future.

              If you’re complaining about what Paul would do with spending, I believe he’s already put forth a budget… If I recall, with actual spending cuts in it.

              And only a prog would ridicule such a pla, righr?

              First of all, slow your roll and try to spell correctly. Second of all, I never argued with your math. You are using prog talk. Knock it off or continue to get ridiculed.

              1. Runs away from the question.

                No, I just don’t answer Non Sequiturs.

                How will he cut total federal spending BELOW current spending for Social Security and Medicare alone? …. is a non sequitor?

                He’d increase the deficit to 2.5 trillion (3.3 trillion of current revenue for perspective). Then cut spending to balance the budget in five years …. but Medicare and Social Security ALONE spend more than the remaining revenues.

                (Rand also agrees with lefties Obama and Buffet that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes! OMG)

                One of many reasons the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

                I believe he’s already put forth a budget..

                WRONG. Before his 75% revenue cut. Still running away?

                He refuses to repeal the defense budget. So if he leaves ONLY Defense, Social Security and Medicare, then SS/Medicare must be cut by over 50% … if NOTHING else remains in the budget.

                Then he repeals Medicaid and Food Stamps entirely, and YOU support giving Progs a weapon like that ?? Who’s fucking side are you on?

                Will we see ads with grandma pushed off a cliff again?
                Soup kitchens and street begging?
                Tumbleweed rolling through abandoned military bases worldwide?
                Oh yeah, only a Prog would mention that (snicker)

                Maybe if we believe enough .. and click our heels?
                Like the Paulista Cult!!!!

                1. How will he cut total federal spending BELOW current spending for Social Security and Medicare alone? …. is a non sequitor?

                  Another non sequitur as we were talking about where the tax cut would come from. Stay on topic.

                  WRONG. Before his 75% revenue cut. Still running away?

                  Google “rand paul budget proposals”. Huh, there are hits, even on this site. Shocking that you are demonstrably wrong…

                  Will we see ads with grandma pushed off a cliff again?
                  Soup kitchens and street begging?
                  Tumbleweed rolling through abandoned military bases worldwide?

                  I honestly don’t care. Also, prog talk.

              2. The liar red-handed AGAIN!

                They pick the biggest tax cut anyone ever proposes, the bigger the better, ignore that the spending cuts are never stated

                I did last time; I will reiterate. I call for a 100% spending cut. That’s a hell of a lot more important than a tax cut

                (snicker) Here’s “the last time” Why does he support Ron Paul’s 100% tax cut for the rich only

                ace_m82|6.19.15 @ 1:06PM|#
                I believe in a 100% tax cut to everyone.
                But don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred. Keep spouting nonsense and claiming victory…
                https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5382299

                Up is down.
                War is peace.
                Black is white.
                NewSpeak for libertarians.

                Again, this is the integrity of the Paulists Cultists

                I call for a 100% spending cut.That’s a hell of a lot more important than a tax cut
                I believe in a 100% tax cut to everyone.
                But don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred. Keep spouting nonsense and claiming victory..

                No victory is possible when a psychotic liar is initiating aggression in a public libertarian forum . One more assault upon liberty. Seen by all those shopping libertarianism today.

                1. And yet again, the socon liar …Part 1

                  So you directly deny that “need a tax increase” and “pay its own share” are prog talk?

                  Yes, I still say it depends on context. So let’s examine your psycho lie.

                  ,

                  you are either a knave or a moron (or both).

                  Regulars and visitors can decide who’s a moron.
                  Background: Rand repeats Obama’s and Buffett’s lies about fair taxes, because his flat tax also redistributed wealth to the middle class.
                  Like FDR and Dubya!

                  He’s even crazier than his father! The average tax rate for the core middle class ($40-100k) is 9% … EVEN WITH ALL THE CURRENT LOOPHOLES!!!

                  http://www.irs.gov/file_source…..in11si.xls

                  Here’s what even the Libertarian Establishment lies about. From the IRS data.
                  a) core middle class reported 30.1% of personal income but paid only 18.1% of the tax. So the rich subsidizes 38% of the core middle class.
                  b) Now divide. The core middle class would need a 61% tax increase ? just to pay its own share.. That’s reported income, targeted exemptions make it a 50%+ subsidiy

                  Obama says a $50,000 truck driver should not pay a higher rate (at 8%) than millionaires and billionaires (who average 22%!) RAND SUPPORTS OBAMA ‘s BULLSHIT!

                  Will he also defy the Constitution, SCOTUS and 60% of Americans … on marriage equality … like all the other extreme socons? Like Orval Faubus?

                  See part 2

                  1. And yet again the socon liar. Part 2

                    I’m being assaulted for the last sentence, about extreme socons, because ace is an extreme socon. Enraged! I called him out for his aggression against pregnant women. So he’s been stalking me for three days now. (The extreme ones are often self-righteous thugs.)

                    He goes ape-shit when I ask how he justifies rejecting a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God ?Given right to Liberty ? which is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life. That’s what unalienable means!!! Look it up!.

                    Jefferson and the Founders were not as stupid as Santorum, Huckabee, Ron and Rand Paul or ace_m82. If all fundamental human rights are not equal, then a tyrannical government could destroy YOUR liberty, to save the life of a total stranger. Or your property. Or …

                    I’ve asked that question three times here, and he attacks me, refusing to answer “non sequitors.” He says it’s not about taxes, and it isn’t. It’s his raging aggression as an ad hominem to discredit this simple challenge:

                    On what authority does ace_m82 claim that government has the power to deny YOUR liberty … claiming to save the life of a total stranger on the other side of the country? THINK of the potential for abuse. He won’t answer, because the simple question demolishes his entire NAP bullshit..

                    1. I’m being assaulted for the last sentence, about extreme socons, because ace is an extreme socon.

                      You need to look up the word “assaulted”. Really.

                      Also, I’ve argued against more socons that you ever could. I will give you proof if you want it.

                      He goes ape-shit

                      Projection.

                      when I ask how he justifies rejecting a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God ?Given right to Liberty ? which is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life.

                      If the little human is alive then murdering it is a violation of NAP. Perhaps she shouldn’t have invited it in if she didn’t want it there. If she were raped, then the trespass is the fault of the rapist and he should pay for it (in whatever way is deemed just).

                      Someone doing bad things to you isn’t an excuse to murder a third party. NAP.

                      That’s what unalienable means!

                      Cannot be taken away. Such as “a life for a life”. If I invite you onto my property, is it a violation of NAP to kill you before you can escape once I’m tired of you? How about if I create you on my property (presumably, in a lab)?

                      On what authority does ace_m82 claim that government has the power to deny YOUR liberty

                      NAP doesn’t require government. You have no liberty to kill innocent parties. I will fight (and even die, if necessary) to defend the rights of anyone I can, because NAP.

                  2. Yes, I still say it depends on context.

                    So inundated with prog talk he thinks it’s normal. Fair enough.

                    So let’s examine your psycho lie.
                    you are either a knave or a moron (or both).

                    That’s the best you can do? Your beliefs can’t be falsified and you argue like a poorly raised 4 year old.

                    He’s even crazier than his father!

                    Ad hominem.

                2. The liar red-handed AGAIN!

                  Not even close, pilgrim. I call for a bigger tax cut than any Paul does or did. Can you really not tell the difference? Of course not…

                  (snicker) Here’s “the last time” Why does he support Ron Paul’s 100% tax cut for the rich only

                  I simply paraphrased him. I really don’t know if you can’t tell the difference or are obfuscating.

                  I call for a much bigger tax and spending cut than either Paul.

                  No victory is possible when a psychotic liar is initiating aggression in a public libertarian forum.

                  I “aggressed” you by proving you wrong? That must explain the flood of emotion whenever you think someone disagrees with you! I understand now!

                  I cannot “aggress” you from this far away. I would need to actually cause you real harm, and mental harm doesn’t count. Veritas Liberabit Vos.

  32. Did Rand Paul just suggest blowing something up? Oh, crap. Now Reason will be receiving a court order demanding they reveal Rand’s identity and location.

    1. No, the court orders come only for psychos in the comments section.

      The subpoena was crazy … but it was humiliating to see psychopathic comments reported so widely, and attributed to “the libertarian Reason,com”

      Raging hatred is not much of a virtue these days, even in tribal politics and even in this libertarian moment. 🙂

      1. You seem like a real bung-hole.

        1. John Galt|6.18.15 @ 7:04PM|#
          You seem like a real bung-hole.

          I knew John Galt when he was less than a year old.
          You’re no John Galt.
          Just another thug.
          Like the ones who prompted the subpoena against Reason.

          Remember when John Galt even taught that guy how to torture him?
          Did he call him a bung-hole?
          (walks away laughing)

        2. Our Faux Joihn Galt defends this thuggery

          Reason got a federal subpoena for comments on Nick’s Silk Road sentence story. I said the subpeona was stupid, but humiliating to see this brutality so widely reported about libertraians .

          http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/…..eason-com/

          …DOJ is targeting Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery

          Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

          It’s judges like these that WILL be taken out back and shot. FTFY.

          Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.

          Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

          I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman.
          (the judge)

          Fuck that. I don’t want to pay for that cunt’s food, housing, and medical. Send her through the wood chipper.

          We see this daily in Reason comments — -the only major political website with no moderators..

          This site gets millions of hits, mostly non-libertarians . How do they see us? Why do “John Galt” (and others) defend it? Thank God this is a libertarian moment! (lol)

          (I copy and send entire pages to the Kochs, to defend the movement)

  33. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  34. Lot’s for Libertarians to like in his preliminary proposal. Would like to know why he thinks the mortgage deduction should remain — doesn’t it just distort residential real estate prices? Canada has no such deduction and home ownership rates are about the same as in the USA.

    The frequent complaint about corporate tax rates being the highest among developed countries is misleading. If one looks at the effective tax rate, then the USA is a tad higher than the OECD average. If adjusted for GDP when looking at OECD rates, the effective corporate tax rates are the same here as there.

    Finally, any politician — anybody — that thinks a balanced federal budget is in all cases a good thing – does not get my respect. Either they don’t understand how our monetary system works — or they’re lying. Rand seems like an honest enough guy, so I must assume he doesn’t know how our monetary system works.

    1. blondrealistIf adjusted for GDP when looking at OECD rates, the effective corporate tax rates are the same here as there.

      Liberal bullshit. They don’t have our tax exempt corporations. Starting in 1986, Republicans increased allowable shareholders for tax-exempt S Corps. Corporate profits are taxed as personal income to shareholders, originally limited to 10 shareholders. Now it’s 100 shareholders, plus newer LLCs are tax exempt for unlimited shareholders. Do the math.

      Hundreds of millions were converted from corporate profits to personal income, creating the illusion of growing inequality at the top …and shrinking corporate taxes as a % of GDP. Republicans armed the crazy left.

      We now double-tax large corporations who provide the best wages and benefits, to subsidize small-medium corporations who pay lower wages and benefits. Then Democrats INCREASED TAXES on job creating manufacturing investment, further targeting the destruction at our best union jobs.

      We all know the workers pay massive tax rates for healthcare in the social welfare states. But you’re never told their employers pay little or nothing for healthcare. So our corporations get fucked on BOTH the highest corporate tax rates AND the world’s highest healthcare costs.

      Fortunately, CATO, Reason and Mercatur are on top of all this. Oh wait …

      Copyright 2015 by Michael J. Hihn. All rights reserved and defended.

      1. It’s true that corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP are lower here than in the other (on average) OECD countries. Your point about S Corps is interesting and merits more study. Thanks.

        As to health insurance premiums paid by corporations — those premiums are fully tax deductible, just like regular wage compensation – but the employees receiving the coverage have no tax liability for that part of their compensation. That “feature” is (in my opinion) the biggest reason we have the world’s highest health care costs. When most workers that have health insurance get it almost for free – then the benefits of free markets are significantly muted. Health care consumers have little reason to question the costs of services when they are insulated from paying for either the services or the insurance. Low deductible and low co-pay policies are more like pre-paid health care plans than insurance plans for most people throughout much of their lives.

        1. As to health insurance premiums paid by corporations — those premiums are fully tax deductible, just like regular wage compensation…

          If you’re suggesting (in your buildup) that (say) Canadian employers pay wages where we would pay health insurance, they don’t. I worked up there for a while and still track their data.I saw the 50% tax bracket at $20,000 … in 1970!

          That “feature” is (in my opinion) the biggest reason we have the world’s highest health care costs.

          Good argument, but the problem is mostly in our government insurance. we spend more money per capita on government healthcare for 38%of our population than five major nations spend for 100% of their population. Mitch Daniels is the only politician I’ve seen with the guts to say why. We’re the only place that can spend $250,000 or more for 6 months of life. Even Obama, when he was campaigning, told of his grandmother getting a costly hip replacement AFTER she was terminal with cancer, then died a few months later.

          I ran for WA Insurance Commissioner in 2000 as LP. When I saw how excited people were on my main point, I could have probably been elected as a Dem or Rep. Oregon was the first state to get a welfare exemption. I wanted one for healthcare fully controlled by workers (tax-free cash). MUST be optional for early adopters, but it exploded in popularity .

  35. Dumping the IRS would be a job-killer. Directly: how many people work there? Indirectly: support people (maintenance, IT departments). Then there are the people who depend on the convoluted code: tax preparers (large and small, from H&R Block to independent accountants and enrolled agents

    It would be a disaster. Just not for us the taxpayers.

    1. Umm, if the tax cuts were not bullshit, we’d have money to spend on creating more jobs elsewhere. Any questions?

    2. Broken windows? Really, you’re going with broken windows?

      1. Broken windows? Really, you’re going with broken windows?

        Really? You don’t know what that means either?
        Really?

  36. I always thought the most bipartisan tax reform would be getting rid of the muni bonds’ tax exempt policy.

    1) Lefties should love making rich guys like Kerry pay taxes.

    2) Righties should like government having to pay the market rate for borrowings.

    1. Harun|6.19.15 @ 3:35AM|#
      I always thought the most bipartisan tax reform would be getting rid of the muni bonds’ tax exempt policy.

      For this lifelong libertarian, it’s heartbreaking to see a page full of total dumbfuck ideas.
      If we increase taxes on muni bonds, the market interest rates on that borrowing will skyrocket, which will have what effect on local property and sales taxes?

  37. Senator Paul seems to be intelligent; however, his tax plan was conceived within the last six months or so. Why doesn’t the investigate the standard flat tax or Fair Tax plans which have been studied and approved by others? These plans have been developed over several years and are available right now for implementation.

    1. Why doesn’t the investigate the standard flat tax or Fair Tax plans which have been studied and approved by others?

      Well, they’re not as fucking stupid as his … but still designed for dumbasses.
      Like Rand, they swallow Buffet’s and Obama’s bullshit about the rich.
      But the rich actually subsidizes 38% of the entire share of income taxes for the core middle class ($40-100k) as proven here.

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5378749

      He’s gonna cut taxes by 75% per year, on top of today’s deficits, but cut spending enough to balance the budget in five years? Even his father’s plan isn’t that fucking crazy!
      But if we believe

  38. I like reading the comments on this board. But when some fucktard like hihn gets on here with his pretentious bullshit it kills the mood. Nobody cares what you have to say. I would, if you wouldn’t be such a douche bag, but a self proclaimed “life-long libertarian”(born to be free?) like him wants to be the square peg for the round world around him. Get a life. Understand that others have points too and they are not just obstacles to get your point out to all the people “that need help understanding the world” by Top Men like you. Hugs, kisses and woodchippers to you and yours.

    1. I like reading the comments on this board. But when some fucktard like hihn gets on here with his pretentious bullshit it kills the mood.

      Translation: Blowhards hate to be proven idiots when they’re bloviating.

      Understand that others have points too

      Translation: Like a prog, feeeeelings. Every opinion deserves respect, even if it’s bat-shit crazy. He’s cycling Oprah!

      Hugs, kisses and woodchippers to you and yours.

      Translation: Initiates death threats if he’s challenged, correctly.

      This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.
      And why Reason faces a federal subpoena for commenters here. (Subpoena is crazy attack on free speech, but all the murder threats were widely reported as from this libertarian website, thus shaming the movement even more.
      Sorry if your feeeeeelings were hurt by a factual description of public shaming. FUCK the general public and voters, right?

      1. If Reason’s libertarian brand is indeed rejected by 91% of libertarians, then your brand would be rejected by 99.9% of them (and is). Or is recruiting going well?

        As for the remaining 0.1%, I hope to never meet them in person.

        1. If Reason’s libertarian brand is indeed rejected by 91% of libertarians, then your brand would be rejected by 99.9% of them (and is). Or is recruiting going well?

          I never said Reason’s, dumbass. “My” brand is 59% of Americans (91% of which reject the libertarian brand). They know extreme socons like you and the Pauls are threats to individual liberty … and oppose Ron Paul’s 100% tax cut for ONLY the rich (that you defend. )

          You initiated aggression on me here, trashmouth. This is self-defense.

          You’ve been stalking me for three days, now all over this page, as thug, because I called you out as a phony on government aggression — who rejects the 9th and 14th Amendments and even denies a fundamental human right to pregnant women. You’re a threat to liberty.

          You claim government should have the power (it doesn’t) to deny my individual liberty ,.. if it would save the life of a total stranger on the other side of the country. Shameful. Disgusting.

          And — you pathetic bigot — I’m mentioned in Wikipedia’s history of the Libertarian Party USA. Readers check the link, to confirm what a drive-by assassin he is! Do a page search for my name. It’s there twice.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

          He’ll say it’s a non sequitor (lol) which is how Birthers suffer severe denial.
          Keep proving how thuggish your Paulista Cult is. Even the Founders knew enough to protect us from your ilk

          1. I never said Reason’s, dumbass.
            This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.
            And why Reason faces a federal subpoena for commenters here.

            Ah, but you can see why I would think so.

            “My” brand is 59% of Americans

            That many Americans argue like obnoxious non-carbon based lifeforms? Who knew?

            You initiated aggression on me here, trashmouth. This is self-defense.

            Once again, you have no idea what the word means. Not letting you have the last word isn’t “aggression”.

            even denies a fundamental human right to pregnant women.

            I deny all people have the right to murder a human who is inside them. A giant who swallows and kills a dwarf has murdered too.

            You claim government should have the power (it doesn’t) to deny my individual liberty

            Nope, I’m an anarchist.

            I’m mentioned in Wikipedia’s history of the Libertarian Party USA.

            Congrats on being on Wikipedia. You’re still an idiot. And it is an appeal to authority this time.

            Keep proving how thuggish your Paulista Cult is.

            I keep hearing about this “cult”. I must keep missing the meetings. Something must be wrong with my phone.

            1. Is there a fundamental human right to swallow dwarf?
              ace_m82 says there is!

              You initiated aggression on me here, trashmouth. This is self-defense.

              Not letting you have the last word isn’t “aggression”.

              (lol) Entering a subthread for the sole purpose of initiating an attack is aggression, as you did here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5382917

              So much for the aggression … Now the wackiness

              even denies a fundamental human right to pregnant women.

              I deny all people have the right to murder a human who is inside them. A giant who swallows and kills a dwarf has murdered too.

              Anyone else crazy enough to claim that unalienable rights include SWALLOWING DWARFS?

              Goobers NEVER stop attacking, even after suck total public wackiness

              buh-bye thug ..

              1. Is there a fundamental human right to swallow dwarf?
                ace_m82 says there is!

                Straw man. Hihn can’t comprehend words if he doesn’t agree with them.

                Entering a subthread for the sole purpose of initiating an attack is aggression, as you did here:

                Not an attack, a response to your idiotic posts. “Answer a fool according to his folly or he will be wise in his own eyes.” By your definition of “aggression”, you aggress against the authors of every article you comment on and disagree with. Not logically consistent. Also, I can’t aggress you from here; I don’t have the means.

                Goobers NEVER stop attacking, even after suck total public wackiness

                I seriously cannot believe you said that, if only because these words describe you better than anyone I have ever met. Congratulations on redefining my understanding of the word “narcissist” (and “oblivious”).

                buh-bye thug ..

                Oh, come on, we both know you can’t help but reply. After all, if you don’t, someone on the internet might think you’re WRONG!

    2. Says now (whining)

      bacon-magic
      Understand that others have points too and they are not just obstacles to get your point out to all the people

      Opening comment (aggression)

      bacon-magic|6.19.15 @ 11:23AM|#
      You are a hateful troll, but Rand still loves you asswipe.

      ANOTHER typical Paulista Cultist (bully)
      They travel in packs.

  39. Much as I appreciate what Rand is doing, and who can not appreciate someone who wants to gut the IRS – No tax plan will work. It can’t happen.

    What people want from the government is too much. Each side wants what it wants. Some people want a huge military, some want a big police state, some want free education for all (art history degrees for the masses!), everyone wants their medicine. And, so on.

    The country wants a lifestyle that does not match its productivity. You either deficit spend, or you buy cheap foreign goods to accomplish this. Either way is an economic disaster, over time.

    1. No tax plan will work. It can’t happen.

      Kennedy and Reagan did it. Identical large cuts led to the only peacetime booms in the past 90 years. But they weren’t retards.

      Rand wants to immediately cut revenues BELOW current spending for SS/Medicare alone … but cut spending to balance the budget in 5 years!. That’s a deficit, before spending cuts, of prox $2.5 trillion per year.

      And he could do it, if voters weren’t so fucking stupid. It’s their fault.
      As George Orwell laughs in his grave.

      This is the long-predicted destruction caused by anti-gummint libertarians. Never a any plan (or interest) in governing. Open contempt for voters. Ridicule pro-liberty libertarians or anyone who doesn’t “want’ to cut government by 80% immediately.

      These assholes are too extreme for Ayn Rand, who supposedly inspired many. (LOL) Even Rand was an incrementalist. Even Rand knew we must change the culture first. Even Rand knew that “voluntary taxation” would be the last step, not the first step, in creating a free society. The last reform, not the first, to propose.

      The assholes would call her a Prog … if they knew what the fuck she said.

      Hell, we even worship a libertarian society for us INSTEAD of a free society for everyone! In a truly free society, libertarians would be only one of many tribes. duh.

      Libertarian Moment? Or the old protest song: Eve of Destruction. Liberty. Undefended.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.