Do you notice now none of the republican candidates have explained why their tax plans...

[g5000]

I have not yet seen a Republican's tax plan that would not reduce revenues and increase our debt.

Look at Rubio's plan.

 

[g5000]

All of the candidates have said they would eliminate tax expenditures, though none of them use the words "tax expenditures". Instead, they say things like "loopholes". The American people have no idea the candidates are saying they would take away almost all deductions, credits, and exemptions. The candidates are very cagey about this. That's why they say "loopholes", because most Americans don't consider their deductions, credits, and exemptions to be loopholes.

Surprise! When the Republican candidates say "loopholes", they are talking about all those deductions, credits, and exemptions you claim on your taxes.

Now you know.

All of them, including Rand Paul, will preserve the mortgage interest deduction, one of the bigger scams going. That's unfortunate, but they know the American people would scream like welfare queens if that government tit was taken from their mouths, even though it is actually ripping them off big-time. It's a wealth redistribution scheme which transfers wealth from homeowners into the pockets of home builders, mortgage brokers, bankers, and real estate agents.

None of them say what they would do about the biggest boondoggle of all, the employer sponsored health insurance exemption. This is the largest individual tax expenditure out there, and is a real budget buster.

They are being particularly cagey about that exemption. For example, Rand Paul's tax plan says, "All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated."

Deductions. He doesn't say a word about exemptions. None of them do. Cruz alludes to providing a "personal exemption" of $4,000 but does not say he would eliminate all other exemptions.

You can't "do the math" on a tax plan that does not address exemptions.

 

[g5000]

The mortgage interest deduction transfers $70 billion a year from the pockets of homeowners into the pockets of home builders, real estate agents, and lenders. They spend $110 million on campaign donations and lobbying in a single year for a reason.

It also punishes people for not buying a house. Just like you are punished for not buying health insurance.

It's bogus, through and through.

 

[bendog]

I have not yet seen a Republican's tax plan that would not reduce revenues and increase our debt.

Look at Rubio's plan.

Which one? The Lee Rubio plan or the one he touted more recently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/upshot/marco-rubios-puppies-and-rainbows-tax-plan.html?_r=0

 

[g5000]

I have not yet seen a Republican's tax plan that would not reduce revenues and increase our debt.

Look at Rubio's plan.

Which one? The Lee Rubio plan or the one he touted more recently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/upshot/marco-rubios-puppies-and-rainbows-tax-plan.html?_r=0

The ones to which I linked. Both personal and business tax plans on his web site.

 

[bendog]

Sorry, but he's walked back that 35% on the top plan so far it's nothing.

 

[g5000]

Sorry, but he's walked back that 35% on the top plan so far it's nothing.

Link?

 

[bendog]

I just put up one.

And I put up two others to the original Lee-Rubio proposal from 2014.

I suppose he's the best of the bad lot, but if the Kochs won't even buy in, that tells me something.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

Hmmmm, right, and all the promises Hillary has made wouldn't ad a cent to the deficit.

You're an idiot.

I don't even want Hillary as president, but she is sure as hell a much better choice than the scumbags running as republicans.

She's devoid of ideas. Just an old white hack.

 

[g5000]

I just put up one.

And I put up two others to the original Lee-Rubio proposal from 2014.

I suppose he's the best of the bad lot, but if the Kochs won't even buy in, that tells me something.

You've only put up one link, and that has a top rate of 35 percent in it:

He proposed a greatly enlarged child tax credit and a top income tax rate of 35 percent.

 

[Siete]

Whether or not the poor save a higher percentage of their income, it's clear that the bulk of the taxpayer savings from his plan would go to the wealthiest Americans. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice study, the top 20 percent of filers would receive back 65 percent of all savings under Rubio's plan—with the bulk of that going to the top 1 percent. The middle 60 percent would get 29 percent of the savings. And the bottom 20 percent would receive just 6 percent.

what's new?

 

[boilermaker55]

With blinders on such as yours, gwb put the war on a credit card, I know you refuse to accept that fact; but that has to be paid for and you don't want too. Accruing debt is from both sides of the isle, but paying for it has to be accepted that raising taxes while cutting spending helps.
But that is a sin to the Grover Norquist crowd....did such a great job.
Deny Deny!

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

Hmmmm, right, and all the promises Hillary has made wouldn't ad a cent to the deficit.

You're an idiot.

 

[Rustic]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

 

[g5000]

Whether or not the poor save a higher percentage of their income, it's clear that the bulk of the taxpayer savings from his plan would go to the wealthiest Americans.

So what?

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice study, the top 20 percent of filers would receive back 65 percent of all savings under Rubio's plan—with the bulk of that going to the top 1 percent. The middle 60 percent would get 29 percent of the savings. And the bottom 20 percent would receive just 6 percent.

what's new?

What's new? Populist innumeracy sure isn't.

If I pay 100 dollars in taxes, and you pay three dollars in taxes, and a politician proposes a tax plan that would save you one dollar and save me 20 dollars, who's getting the better deal?

You are. You are saving one third, I am saving one fifth, but the populists would take advantage of your innumeracy and say, "Hey! That rich guy is getting most of the savings!"

 

[g5000]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

No it isn't.

We give away $1.2 trillion in government gifts every year. And that does not include the $600 billion spent on social welfare programs.

If we eliminated the $1.2 trillion tit, we could easily start paying down the debt.

 

[Rustic]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

No it isn't.

We give away $1.2 trillion in government gifts every year. And that does not include the $600 billion spent on social welfare programs.

If we eliminated the $1.2 trillion tit, we could easily start paying down the debt.

How do you propose pay off...
Almost 150 trillion??

 

[g5000]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

No it isn't.

We give away $1.2 trillion in government gifts every year. And that does not include the $600 billion spent on social welfare programs.

If we eliminated the $1.2 trillion tit, we could easily start paying down the debt.

How do you propose pay off...
Almost 150 trillion??

Ban all tax expenditures. Raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. Make our allies pick up their own tabs for their defense.

Done!

 

[bripat9643]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

No it isn't.

We give away $1.2 trillion in government gifts every year. And that does not include the $600 billion spent on social welfare programs.

If we eliminated the $1.2 trillion tit, we could easily start paying down the debt.

"Government gifts?" By that I assume you mean so-called "tax expenditures," which really means allowing people to keep their own money.

They aren't "gifts."

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Rustic]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

No it isn't.

We give away $1.2 trillion in government gifts every year. And that does not include the $600 billion spent on social welfare programs.

If we eliminated the $1.2 trillion tit, we could easily start paying down the debt.

How do you propose pay off...
Almost 150 trillion??

Ban all tax expenditures. Raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. Make our allies pick up their own tabs for their defense.

Done!

That would be a nice start, it's not going to happen though...

 

[g5000]

...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.

The debt is too large to ever pay off, dumba$$

No it isn't.

We give away $1.2 trillion in government gifts every year. And that does not include the $600 billion spent on social welfare programs.

If we eliminated the $1.2 trillion tit, we could easily start paying down the debt.

"Government gifts?" By that I assume you mean so-called "tax expenditures," which really means allowing people to keep their own money.

They aren't "gifts."

Go fuck yourself.

Thanks for providing an example of the tards who swallow the piss that tax expenditures allow them to keep more of their own money.

They don't. They are actually a means to transfer wealth from the pockets of the common man into the pockets of special interests, and I have proven that several times.

Not only that, they are paid for by EVERYONE paying higher tax rates. Thus, your government gifts are coming at the expense of others.

They also create an insane system whereby people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

Tax expenditures are a government behavioral control program which punishes you for not behaving the way the government wants you to.

And like I always say, the rubes will scream like hippies and welfare queens if you try to take them away, like you just did.