Rand Paul: "As president, I will get the IRS out of your life"

ananda said:

I'd imagine that the difference would be made up for through the 17% consumption tax.

Click to expand...

What is Paul's view on a consumption tax? Please explain.

JustOneWay said:

Yes....

As long as we get ours we need not care about anything else.

Click to expand...

Yes, send all you access money to federal government for redistribution.

More details here: Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

ananda said:

I'd imagine that the difference would be made up for through the 17% consumption tax.

Click to expand...

What consumption tax? There's no mention of a consumption tax.

But assuming you're correct, in that he is proposing a consumption tax on top of the income tax cut, I'd be interested to know how implementing a consumption tax would make the tax code and enforcement less complicated.

Crusader05 said:

Yes, send all you access money to federal government for redistribution.

More details here: Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

Click to expand...

Why would I do that? I clearly stated I am as selfish as the next guy....

JustOneWay said:

Why would I do that? I clearly stated I am as selfish as the next guy....

Click to expand...

I misunderstood what you were saying about "us getting ours".

The point I'm trying to make it no one in their right mind pays more than they owe or volunteer to give more to the government. This is not selfish! The real selfish ones are the lefties who demand more and more tax dollars so they can grow government.

Crusader05 said:

I misunderstood what you were saying about "us getting ours".

The point I'm trying to make it no one in their right mind pays more than they owe or volunteer to give more to the government. This is not selfish! The real selfish ones are the lefties who demand more and more tax dollars so they can grow government.

Click to expand...

Do you still work for the government? Just wondering....

I would like to see the bloated military budget slashed.

JustOneWay said:

Do you still work for the government? Just wondering....

I would like to see the bloated military budget slashed.

Click to expand...

I still serve in the US military if that's what you mean. I'd love for the DoD to have more control over its budget so we could use our money more wisely, like shuttering the 20% of facilities we no longer need and streamline our acquisitions process but Congress wont allow it.

JustOneWay said:

Do you still work for the government? Just wondering....

I would like to see the bloated military budget slashed.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it should be slashed quite heavily, in my opinion.

It's almost become a glorified jobs programme, sad to say.

JustOneWay said:

The full plan has not been revealed. There is no fear or hyperbole in that statement.

Rand Paul's flat tax plan - Apr. 7, 2015


Business income: Businesses would be subject to the same 17% rate.
Investment income: Capital gains, dividends and interest would be tax free.
Payroll tax: Low- and middle-income workers would get an exemption from the Social Security tax. How much isn't clear.
Estate and gift tax: Eliminated.
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): Eliminated.



Apparently you do not understand that cutting taxes will affect every aspect of the government, which will bring huge government layoffs and slashed spending in programs....

Click to expand...

Eliminating the capital gains tax would just encourage more speculation and financial bubbles. What we need is to encourage more production and innovation through honest hard work.

JustOneWay said:

The full plan has not been revealed. There is no fear or hyperbole in that statement.

Business income: Businesses would be subject to the same 17% rate.
Investment income: Capital gains, dividends and interest would be tax free.

Click to expand...

An incentive to pile up cash reserves, not put it into circulation. Where will the lost revenue be made up? Oh, that's right, he'll make up something to sell the deal.

Payroll tax: Low- and middle-income workers would get an exemption from the Social Security tax. How much isn't clear.

Click to expand...

Neither is how to make up for the lost revenue.

Estate and gift tax: Eliminated.

Click to expand...

It only applies to very high incomes anyway. Another gift to the wealthy. Although, I do agree in principle that it is a double taxation.

Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): Eliminated.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Paul. More money for the wealthy to sit on. Maybe they'll buy more gold

In terms of the originating American ideals...Rand is correct. It's highly doubtful that the founders could've ever imagined a tax collecting entity as powerful as the IRS...if you think about it, the IRS didn't even exist until the 1950's so people in the 1920's probably couldn't have imagined that happening.

However, where Rand is making a mistake (the same mistake many politicians make), is promising something that he can't deliver on. Sure, I'd love to have the IRS out of my life and would prefer a system with a 20% sales tax, 75% death tax on any amount over $100k, and nothing else, I think that would provide a little bit of the best of both worlds, the less fortunate buy less, so they'd pay less of the tax burden, the rich would have the option of either A) spend the money while they're alive, thus paying 20% on that spending (cover larger part of the burden, stimulate the economy) or B) cling onto it until they die, then that mass fortune goes to the government...sort of a "use it or lose it" mentality...no more of that "5 generations of wealth coasting off of a person's accomplishments from 80 years ago" sort of thing we see quite a bit today

...however, that's not exactly a small change and it's certainly not something one person, alone, can promise & deliver on in a 4-8 year time period.

It's similar to the mistake Obama made when, on his campaign trail, he boasted that he was going to get another government body (the DEA) off of people's backs...he found out the hard way that it's easier said than done on the topic of attempting to dissolve an established government entity.

The IRS is a business that has 90,000 employees... On par with Microsoft.

...you have an organization that size, people within that organization are going to be fighting to keep those jobs. The IRS also falls under a union called the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), another organization with tens of thousands of employees that are working to protect the jobs of people in the following agencies...

Dept of Energy
ATF
IRS
Health and Human Services
National Park Service
Patent Office
The SEC
The EPA
FDA
and the FDIC

A union that represents that list is a union with some stroke in Washington DC...you can bank on that...and they're not going to be easy to tangle with. You combine that with the fact that the IRS represents close to 1/3 of the NTEU's total membership???...fuggetaboutit. Sorry Rand...as much as I like your idea, I don't see it happening.

That'd be like trying to convince the UAW to let an outside interest shut down GM.

ananda said:

I'd imagine that the difference would be made up for through the 17% consumption tax.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, the only way to make up a 17% income tax cut with a 17% consumption tax would be if they spent 100% of their income on consumables subject to taxation, which isn't going to happen. So the net result would still be a reduced tax burden.

And if that 17% consumption tax is across the board, then it will be regressive tax on the poor.

Though as others have said, I'm not aware of any such plan anyways.

If we stopped spending 50 cents of every federal dollar on old people via SS and Medicare the country would be in wonderful shape.

The elderly today are the most entitled generation ever.

This sounds like a great tax plan for Mitt Romney. From what I recall of his tax returns, pretty much all his income is capital gains -- which would not be taxed. As such, Mitt Romney would pay no taxes despite earning millions.

The middle and lower classes seemed like they'd be hit hardest, despite not having to pay social security taxes, that really only equals what they currently get for the standard exemption. From what I can tell, their tax burden would actually increase.

Last, Paul claims that it would be a $700 billion tax cut annually. As I understand the numbers, this would mean that roughly $1 trillion would need to be cut from the US budget for it be balanced. Cutting the federal budget by a quarter just isn't going to happen. First, the political fallout would be job suicide for those in Congress because of the sheer number of things that would need to be cut -- Congress will not be that aggressive because they know they wouldn't be re-elected. More to the point, cutting the federal budget that aggressively would destroy the US economy. Sure, the idea is that you're "making up" the money by allowing tax payers to have more money, but it just doesn't work that way. It would likely require cutting nearly half of the federal workforce, to cut the federal budget that severely; particularly when there are long term contracts that would still have to be honored.

wpiman2 said:

If we stopped spending 50 cents of every federal dollar on old people via SS and Medicare the country would be in wonderful shape.

The elderly today are the most entitled generation ever.

Click to expand...

LOL. Careful, you will be there before you know it.

wpiman2 said:

If we stopped spending 50 cents of every federal dollar on old people via SS and Medicare the country would be in wonderful shape.

The elderly today are the most entitled generation ever.

Click to expand...

Who cares about old people? Romney was right....they are part of the 47% of freeloaders who will vote for Obama no matter what.

miniverchivi said:

...however, that's not exactly a small change and it's certainly not something one person, alone, can promise & deliver on in a 4-8 year time period.

It's similar to the mistake Obama made when, on his campaign trail, he boasted that he was going to get another government body (the DEA) off of people's backs...he found out the hard way that it's easier said than done on the topic of attempting to dissolve an established government entity..

Click to expand...

Oh, my goodness, yes. Please do not underestimate the power of the permanent bureaucracy in Washington. They are all Civil Service, and the threat of eliminating any one agency is a threat to everyone in Civil Service.

They will make even the smartest president look like a bumbler in retaliation. All they have to do is exactly what he tells them, absolutely nothing more and nothing less, and he will look like a grand fool.

Maren said:

This sounds like a great tax plan for Mitt Romney. From what I recall of his tax returns, pretty much all his income is capital gains -- which would not be taxed. As such, Mitt Romney would pay no taxes despite earning millions.

The middle and lower classes seemed like they'd be hit hardest, despite not having to pay social security taxes, that really only equals what they currently get for the standard exemption. From what I can tell, their tax burden would actually increase.

Last, Paul claims that it would be a $700 billion tax cut annually. As I understand the numbers, this would mean that roughly $1 trillion would need to be cut from the US budget for it be balanced. Cutting the federal budget by a quarter just isn't going to happen. First, the political fallout would be job suicide for those in Congress because of the sheer number of things that would need to be cut -- Congress will not be that aggressive because they know they wouldn't be re-elected. More to the point, cutting the federal budget that aggressively would destroy the US economy. Sure, the idea is that you're "making up" the money by allowing tax payers to have more money, but it just doesn't work that way. It would likely require cutting nearly half of the federal workforce, to cut the federal budget that severely; particularly when there are long term contracts that would still have to be honored.

Click to expand...

Which is why Paul's plan is so absurd....

Yet here we are listening to people applauding him as a fiscally conservative person. Don't they know that none of this will happen and all he is doing is telling them what they want to hear?

I generally like paul, but a lot of this cannot happen. We would be better served by having a conservative that wants to make the tax code realistically simpler while keeping it progressive to promote mobility and competition.

miniverchivi said:

In terms of the originating American ideals...Rand is correct. It's highly doubtful that the founders could've ever imagined a tax collecting entity as powerful as the IRS...if you think about it, the IRS didn't even exist until the 1950's so people in the 1920's probably couldn't have imagined that happening.

However, where Rand is making a mistake (the same mistake many politicians make), is promising something that he can't deliver on. Sure, I'd love to have the IRS out of my life and would prefer a system with a 20% sales tax, 75% death tax on any amount over $100k, and nothing else, I think that would provide a little bit of the best of both worlds, the less fortunate buy less, so they'd pay less of the tax burden, the rich would have the option of either A) spend the money while they're alive, thus paying 20% on that spending (cover larger part of the burden, stimulate the economy) or B) cling onto it until they die, then that mass fortune goes to the government...sort of a "use it or lose it" mentality...no more of that "5 generations of wealth coasting off of a person's accomplishments from 80 years ago" sort of thing we see quite a bit today

...however, that's not exactly a small change and it's certainly not something one person, alone, can promise & deliver on in a 4-8 year time period.

Click to expand...

That has to be one of the best ideas ever.