Bernie leads Hildawg in NH

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 03:04 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'd say it would be prudent to formulate the most important one on their platform.
I also think it should be mandatory for candidates to list people they intend to request be in their cabinet.

I'd love to see that. What most people don't realize is a good chunk of Washington stays the same, depending on party, no matter who gets elected. Cheney, for example, has served on about a half dozen appointments over the years. He bounces back and forth from private sector to some position of advisement. And people wonder how the same things keep happening over and over.

(09-08-2015, 03:08 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, there's no specifics here, or maybe I have a largely different definition of specific.

"I'm going to do X" is not specific.

 

(09-08-2015, 03:16 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Without getting into any kind of pissing match over the details of this proposal, do you believe this is a more specific proposal than the ones I highlighted from Sanders' website?

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. 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.

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

No, it's superfluous. The writer just uses more words to make it look like he's explaining it. And most of it is just adjectives to work people up into a froth. Such as:

"And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts." Making you frothy?

"The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected.Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%." Frothy overload here. Rich are bad, and even though this only benefits them, I'm making you think it's benefiting you. Why? Because NO ONE CAN TELL CONGRESS THEY CAN'T PUT IN LOOPHOLES.

"Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs." No numbers, no facts, just some comments made by a partisan pro-business group that normally supports conservative legislation.

"The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president." More froth.


Really, the only thing that's meat in this hyperbole sandwich is: "I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. 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."