Press-Ninnies are the ones who ask ninny questions.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, seeking to jump-start his GOP presidential campaign with a 20 percent flat tax, said “I don’t care” if his plan gives millions to wealthy Americans because he says it will accelerate economic growth.
That response is the economics version of the Mark Block cigarette.
So happens that Perry's plan also reduces taxes on everyone else, too--but the Ninnies don't care about that, do they?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
At least he's telling the truth. He's pretty much openly admiting to supporting regressive tax cuts and trickle down economics.
It's dumb and lacks all evidence of actually working, but it's high time a GOP candidate openly admits to not really caring about the middle class all that much.
I say good for Perry.
Read the plan.
Your charges are un-founded. Half-a-million in income and one still qualifies for mtg int/charity/state-and-local exemptions PLUS personal exempts at $12.5K each and it's "regressive"?
BS.
Perry's actual tax proposal is a joke. Massive tax exemptions for a family of 4 making under $50,000? Hey great! Wow! Except a family of 4 that makes under $50,000 don't pay that much in INCOME taxes as it is. Their tax burden lies in taxes OUTSIDE of income taxes so their total tax burden will be little changed under Perry's plan (they may even choose to opt out of the flat tax option).
Meanwhile, Lookie lookie at what Perry's doing on the other end of the income distribution. Cheap repatriotiation of corporate profits (offshored to evade taxes in the first place), slash all individual and corporate tax from 35% to 20%. Oh Shocking! This is a HUGE windfall for the same people who have benefited exponentially from the regressive tax policies of the past 30 years. Likewise, you don't need to be an accountant to realize that tax revenues will fall as a percent/GDP, based on this plan. Guess what you've won next, middle class America! A Republican President who wants to offset the massive drop in revenues (as a result of taxing rich people even less) with massive cuts to Social Security benefits and Medicare! You get nothing and, in exchange, they get to beat you over the head with a pipe! Sounds like a great deal to me!
It's just the same bullshit, different day people. Why don't Republican hacks just bring back G. W. Bush. Perry's just doing the same thing Bush did almost 10 years ago but worse. Cain too.
Middle class Americans need to wake the hell up. These people don't care about you. Stop voting against your best interest.
And Obama and the Dems are doing a bang-up job right? With perpetual high unemployment, institutionalized bailouts, regulatory hell, and skyrocketing deficits and debt as far as the eye can see.
At least my husband was employed during GWB. That 5% unemployment rate really sucked, eh?
Face it - we have to cut back on entitlements. At the very least means testing Soc Sec and Medicare. And going offshore to evade a 35% tax, gee, whoda thought that would happen? Yeesh.
Face it - eating the rich won't get you want you want either. I'd rather take my chances on trickle down wealth v trickle up poverty. I'm not voting for my best interest anymore, but my grandkids.
Any new tax plan is exponentially better than the one we're under and headed toward.
So Mr. Strupp, are you saying the democrats are showing more compassion for the middle class by growing the ranks of the unemployed and confiscating more of what that middle class earns?
At the very least means testing Soc Sec
We already "means test" Social Security. SS is taxed above a specified level of income.
And going offshore to evade a 35% tax.
Can you provide the name of a corporation paying 35% of their net income in taxes?
Terry said: democrats are showing more compassion for the middle class by growing the ranks of the unemployed
Democrats have NOT grown the ranks of the unemployed.
confiscating more of what that middle class earns?
Obama has consistently LOWERED taxes for the middle class since taking office. You need to get your facts straight.
Mom said:
regulatory hell, and skyrocketing deficits
This is a talking point, not a fact. Small businesses polled do not indicate that excess regulation is a high priority for them. Furthermore, at the time in their administrations, Obama and Bush were basically the same in the number of regulations they had passed.
The deficits are primarily caused by the ongoing recession, the wars in the middle east, and the Bush tax cuts, not by Obama's policies.
....thank you Jim.
And you aren't voting in the best interest of your grandkids if you support immediate austerity in times of high unemployment and depression.
Irving Fischer's debt deflation theory sums this position up so I don't have to.
Which reminds me....
Hey Dadster....how's anti-stimulus (anti-Keynes) England doing lately? You think it's bad here? Take a look at over there:
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/MSUN-8MXFSY?OpenDocument
I believe that the post has perfect collection of words and a well research. Its awesome! Thanks for sharing. Waiting for next.
Sorry Jim - it is a fact that the Obama regulations will cost businesses more - billions more for compliance and in higher costs to simply keep the lights on. I work in supply chain and speak with businesses - most of them small businesses every single day. They are scared to death of ObamaCare and the EPA.
And taxing some of the money we give out isn't means testing. I'm talking about cutting off John McCain, Warren Buffett, and Nancy Pelosi. They (and anyone with over $150K in other annual means) should get NOTHING. They don't need it. In fact the one tax I am totally open to increasing is lifting the cap on the payroll tax.
The only businesses paying 35% are the small ones that can't afford millions in attorneys or move their stuff off-shore. Simplify the tax code, eliminate all subsidies, reduce the rate. You know you are out of whack when our rate is higher than Europe.
As far as taxes? Those evil Bush tax cuts lowered rates for every single taxpayer - not just the rich. And until the Republicans took the House, Obama was perfectly content to let all of them expire which would have cost the middle class dearly.
In a way, I can't wait to have Obama leave Iraq just so that all you folks will notice that the wars are but a small portion of the deficit. Between FY2007 (when the Dems took control of the purse strings with Queen Nancy) and FY2010 (the last year with a budget) Federal spending increased by $1.2 - almost 33%. But hey, don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your feelings.
btw - when are the Dems finally going to claim the economy and perpetual high unemployment? Its been almost 3 years since the HopeAndChange and he had total control of the government for the first two. You'd think we would be seeing some improvement from all his great recycled Carter-era ideas by now, right?
Do you care to source your accusations? Overall cost of the war in Iraq as a % of total debt over that same timeframe. It ain't peanuts. You want to source total lost revenues from the Bush tax cuts? Total economic cost of specific regulations enacted by the Obama administration?
Care to compare federal spending/GDP of this adminstration to other administrations?
And small businesses don't pay 35% either. Not after deductions. No way. Sorry.
You're all over the place. You want job creation, then complain about debt but want to cut taxes which will make our budget situation worse. And then you want to gut the EPA and god knows what else and put another few thousand people out on the street and on to UI which will make our budget situation worse. The inconsistancies are too numerous to count.
Small businesses, you know those job creators that wouldn't create jobs if their top marginal rate was increased from 35% to 39.6%, only pay tax on their income after all business expenses are deduction, personal exemptions, mortgage interest, and all other personal deductions. If that leaves them taxable income above about $250,000, only that amount above $250,000 is taxed at 35%.
So no, no small business pays 35% in taxes.
it is a fact that the Obama regulations will cost businesses more - billions more for compliance and in higher costs to simply keep the lights on.
It's a fact? Then show your source.
Which small businesses would be scared to death of the EPA? Why?
If John McCain, Warren Buffett, and Nancy Pelosi have paid into Social Security, and they have, then they should get what's due them regardless of their current income or wealth. Tax them on it, but don't take something away that they paid into. To use one of your favorite terms, THAT would be "confiscatory".
But I do agree on raising the cap.
And until the Republicans took the House, Obama was perfectly content to let all of them expire
Please source the "all of them expire" part. He want to let the top rate expire. That said, letting ALL of them expire would reduce the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years. Talk about fiscal responsibility.
In a way, I can't wait to have Obama leave Iraq just so that all you folks will notice that the wars are but a small portion of the deficit.
A small portion, eh?
he had total control of the government for the first two.
It takes 60 senators to have "total control" of the Senate. The Democrats, with 2 Independents including Lieberman (not a sure vote), held a 60 vote majority for a total of about 4 months in 2009. Four months. Republicans have "controlled" the Senate since February 4, 2010 because of the filibuster rule.
@ Jim -
Gee - why would any business be afraid of the EPA?
http://shopfloor.org/2011/10/epa-regulations-cause-uncertainty-hurt-jobs/22782
Only a liberal would say that having 60 liberals in the Senate is not having total control. Too bad Obama spent all his political capital on the debt-busting ObamaCare with those 60 Senators. With anything even remotely middle of the road on a budget he could have peeled off the Maine twins, Graham, McCain and probably a couple others. And yes, businesses are afraid of ObamaCare. Nobody knows how much the cost of an employee will be in just a year or so - so they ain't hiring.
As far as the uber-wealthy that liberals love to hate. Now you say they deserve to get back what they put in to Medicare and SSI? You've got to be kidding. It's a tax, not a savings account. And they get back way more than they put in. Try being consistent - either you want to give them an entitlement that they so don't need or you want to take all their money. Make up your mind already.
@ Strupp -
you don't have to like it, but the fact is, that a laid off government worker is less expensive to the taxpayers on unemployment than when on the payroll with bennies. Take a look at that pie chart above - we spend almost as much on government pensions as the defense budget.
Air and water quality has been going up already under the old rules... And some of these new levels can't even be detected with current techonology.. The EPA is now in make-work and social engineering mode. They worship at the global warming religious altar and the goal is to.. how did Obama put it? Oh yeah - bankrupt coal plants and make energy costs necessarily skyrocket. There are multiple EPA regs - especially CSAPR - coming in the near future that will cost billions annually and are expected to shut down up to 20% of coal plants - accounting for about a 9% reduction in total energy output in the country starting in 2012. That won't hurt the economy at all right?
The entire defense budget is only 23% of the overall Federal spending. That does not a $1.7T annual deficit make. Handy pie chart here. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2010_3.html
But as long as you are claiming I am inconsistent in my thinking... Why do you believe it won't hurt the economy to cut defense spending - which pays soldiers and buys goods and services from companies that employ folks all over the country, but cutting spending on burocratic paper-pushers would push us over the cliff into a depression?
Btw - here is your comparison of federal spending to GDP for 2000-2010... Wow - look at that ginormous spike starting in FY2007... Why yes, that WAS when the Dems took control of the budget. Seems to me that was about the same time that the economy started tanking too.... http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2010USp_13s1li011mcn_F0t_US_Government_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP
I asked, "Overall cost of the war in Iraq as a % of total debt over that same timeframe."
You replied, "The entire defense budget is only 23% of the overall Federal spending. That does not a $1.7T annual deficit make."
Most reports put current total cost of our occupation of Iraq at approx. $1 trillion so feel free to do the math over a 8-9 year period. It ain't peanuts. No, it's not 1.7T annually but it ain't peanuts.
"Why do you believe it won't hurt the economy to cut defense spending -"
I don't. If I had to choose between immediate reductions in defense spending and leaving the defense budget alone for a few years, I would choose the latter. I would rather slash defense spending immediately and use the money for something more productive but no change is acceptable if it's between that and immediate net spending reductions.
"Btw - here is your comparison of federal spending to GDP for 2000-2010... Wow - look at that ginormous spike starting in FY2007... Why yes, that WAS when the Dems took control of the budget. Seems to me that was about the same time that the economy started tanking too...."
Fed. spending/GDP.....you are aware of the denominator correct?
Sorry I don't play team politics. I think you need to do some more reading on the subject if you think that the economy magically tanked because we elected a bunch of Democrats to Congress.
No the economy didn't tank because we elected Democrats in 2007. Just like it wasn't all GWB. That was a bi-partisan bubble that popped and had been many years in the making. 2007 was the year that the Dems did hit the accelerator on spending however. And Federal spending as a % of GDP was the discussion. The steep incline started pre-recession.
Post a Comment