So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.

Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.

Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.

Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.

Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.

Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.

Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?

Have you tried knowing what you're talking about?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/sen-ted-cruz-top-priority-abolish-irs

Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:58:22 AM
Have you tried knowing what you're talking about?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/sen-ted-cruz-top-priority-abolish-irs

No. Abolishing the IRS (which will never happen anyways, it's empty rhetoric) will not cut spending as much as Cruz's plan would cut taxes.

Now, does anyone have a serious, realistic plan that would cut the deficit and maybe even give us our first surplus in 15 years.

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:10:34 AM
No.

Yes.

Quote
Abolishing the IRS (which will never happen anyways, it's empty rhetoric)

No it isn't.  It is very doable, and isn't rhetoric.

Quote
will not cut spending as much as Cruz's plan would cut taxes.

Abolishing the IRS wouldn't affect spending?

Quote
Now, does anyone have a serious, realistic plan that would cut the deficit and maybe even give us our first surplus in 15 years.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/8-questions-about-the-media-with-rising-gop-star-ted-cruz/#ixzz25W1W1KVl

QuoteCruz: My first priority in the U.S. Senate will be to help lead the fight to repeal every single word of Obamacare. And that, come January, is going to be an epic battle. That's not going to be easy to accomplish. My second priority will be to lead the effort to bring people together to dramatically shrink the size, power and spending of the federal government. And a critical element of that, and what I would list as third, is to help lead the effort to pass a strong balanced budget amendment, so that the constitution can serve actually as Thomas Jefferson put it: as chains to bind the mischief of government.

TheDC: How do you come down on eliminating specific federal cabinet agencies and departments? Do you have specific ones you'd like to see thrown out?

Cruz: I am all for it. We're in a crisis. Our national debt is larger than our gross domestic product. We are barreling down the road to where Greece and Italy and much of Europe find themselves. And we need serious leadership to stop it. I think we should shrink the size and power of the federal government by every and any means possible. What does that mean?

That means eliminating unnecessary or unconstitutional agencies. The first agency I would eliminate would be the U.S. Department of Education. I think education is far too important to be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. I think it should be at the state level, or even better, at the local level where parents have direct influence over the education of our kids.

I would eliminate the U.S. Department of Commerce. I would eliminate the U.S. Department of Energy. I would eliminate the National Endowment of the Arts. I think the arts are terrific. But I see no reason why unelected bureaucrats spend your and mine tax dollars on arts they happen to like.

And the agency I'd most like to eliminate is the IRS through fundamental tax reform.

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.

Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.

Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.

Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?

Therein lies the issue. It's not so much the system, rather us, for electing frauds.
Just changing the name of the arena where Caligula slaughtered for entertainment, does absolutely nothing to change the end result.
Tare down the arena, take away their power to hold such an event.

In other words, a fair/flat tax eliminates this as Cruz proposes.
The State takes it's cut first, thereby eliminating the threat of noncompliance the Fed uses in holding States captive.
Trumps plan does absolutely nothing to change the game.

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?

In 2017 with Cruz, as I optimistically look at it.

He'll be elected on an anti-spending mandate.   It won't be a remorseful case of What is he doing now?, once he begins the process of eliminating unnecessary Cabinet Departments. 

For example, the IRS would become a bookkeeping & resource firm.  The audit, as a weapon, is gone.  So is the mystery of 'what you owe'...  Because right now, we're relying on their word.  Cruz is simply abiding by the 16th Amendment.  As far as the Internal Revenue Code; Title 26, he'll have a Congress that will tweak the Subtitles:



    Subtitle A—Income Taxes (§§ 1–1564)
    Subtitle B—Estate and Gift Taxes (§§ 2001–2801)
    Subtitle C—Employment Taxes (§§ 3101–3510)
    Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Excise Taxes (§§ 4001–5000C)
    Subtitle E—Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes (§§ 5001–5891)
    Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration (§§ 6001–7874)
    Subtitle G—The Joint Committee on Taxation (§§ 8001–8023)
    Subtitle H—Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns (§§ 9001–9042)
    Subtitle I—Trust Fund Code (§§ 9500–9602)
    Subtitle J—Coal Industry Health Benefits (§§ 9701–9722)
    Subtitle K—Group Health Plan Requirements (§§ 9801–9834)


There's no need of a giant, lumbering IRS to sort it all out.  They're in-peril of Americans 'unlearning' about them.  Once eliminated, they can never be 'learned about' again. 

Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:49:03 AM
Yes.
No it isn't.  It is very doable, and isn't rhetoric.
Abolishing the IRS wouldn't affect spending?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/8-questions-about-the-media-with-rising-gop-star-ted-cruz/#ixzz25W1W1KVl

Why do these Trumpets glom onto one issue as if that's all hat matters, and completely ignore the fact that this guy is a known liar.
Sure, Trump passes it off as "evolving" on the issues, but the obvious truth is, he has Zero Values and will change his mind like a Fall breeze changes direction.

These people remind me of the idiots that buy cars because they're pretty, never once inquiring about the manufacturers history of recalls.
"But it's pretty and gets great mileage". No, it's still a Yugo, and the mileage is tabulated using a yearly average against cars that actually run.
Sure, a car that spends more time in repair is going to use less fuel.

Regardless of the tax plan and who occupies the WH, the plan must clear CONgress first. Unless the makeup changes drastically in 2016, I really don't see any tax cuts making it through! Abolishing the IRS, as is proposed with the flat tax, will be a tough sell in CONgress, especially the one we have now. The caveat with all tax cuts is reducing spending along with or before reducing taxes. But it has to start by electing conservatives, not democrats or RINO's to Congress. If we don't, it's just more of the same.

Quote from: tac on September 29, 2015, 04:19:16 AM
Regardless of the tax plan and who occupies the WH, the plan must clear CONgress first. Unless the makeup changes drastically in 2016, I really don't see any tax cuts making it through! Abolishing the IRS, as is proposed with the flat tax, will be a tough sell in CONgress, especially the one we have now. The caveat with all tax cuts is reducing spending along with or before reducing taxes. But it has to start by electing conservatives, not democrats or RINO's to Congress. If we don't, it's just more of the same.

You're right Tac, the POTUS does not write law, so his proposal is nothing more than Trumptalk, in other words, bull shit.

You are incredibly naive. You probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.

If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.

So No.

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
You are incredibly naive. You probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.

If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.

So No.

The only one here that's naive is you and your inability to grasp the concept that paying a tax at time of purchase has zero chance of cheating, as in the Fair tax system.
A system that would essentially eliminate the IRS.

How do you cheat on Flat or Fair tax?

QuoteFlat tax. A flat tax is exactly what it sounds like: a consistent tax rate applied to all tax brackets. A true flat tax would mean, as Dr. Carson explained, that everyone would pay the same tax rate regardless of income (he suggested 10% since that "works for God"). Flat taxes are usually imposed on wages only, meaning that there's no tax on capital gains or investments. Russia is considered to be the world's largest economy with a flat tax (some of the Baltic states also have a flat tax).

People like a flat tax because it feels more fair: everyone pays the same percentage of tax across the board. A flat tax is more simple and should mean that there would be less call for taxpayers to pay to have returns prepared; some suggest that it would completely eliminate the need for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Flat taxes are also supported in the business and investment communities since dividends, distributions, capital gains and other income not tied to wages are generally exempt from tax: this should spur investment and savings.

QuoteFair Tax. The Fair Tax is capitalized for a reason: it's a formal proposal rather than a generic term. It differs from both the progressive income tax system and the flat tax in a very dramatic way: it is not a tax on income. The Fair Tax would replace all existing income taxes – as well as payroll taxes – with a single consumption tax. The tax, as proposed, would be a 30% tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to a "prebate." The "prebate" is akin to a refund and is offered at the beginning of each month so that certain purchases are essentially tax-free.

People like a Fair Tax because it eliminates taxes on payroll and income: taxpayers get to keep their entire check and won't have to make those dreaded estimated payments. It's considered more fair than a progressive income tax since taxpayers are taxed on consumption of goods and services which are, on some level, expenditures that can be controlled at will (the exception being necessities which are not exempt under the Fair Tax). Additionally, since certain kinds of goods and services are always going to be in demand, a tax on consumption is considered more stable than a tax on wages. All taxpayers would be subject to the tax, including those that are engaging in illegal activities. People also like a Fair Tax because, since retailers would collect and remit taxes directly to the Treasury, the IRS could be eliminated.

source

One of the best ways to reduce spending is reduce the govt, no more Hot tubbing Las Vegas Junkets for GS 15's and no more $500 hammers bought by GSA.

Combing agencies is the best way to start. I'd put the EPA in with the Dept of energy and make them both figure out a way to get private energy production on a mass and efficient scale, thus reducing the budget of both agencies. Then I'd start in on their resources and start taking away their vehicles and give them bikes or skateboards, no more drones, no more guns and ammo, no more playing cowboys or cops and robbers, no more enforcement of your own regulations and stand down from all enforcement until some of these restrictive destructive regs are stricken from the books.

Back off the regs and lets get the coal, oil, natural gas industries up and running and create some jobs.

I'd auction just about everything they have to the public and pay off the national debt.

Off course I wouldn't stop with these two agencies but DEFUND AS MANY AS I COULD AND AUCTION OFF THEIR RESOURCES (iNCLUDING BUILDINGS) AS WEll. GOVT HIRING FREEZE!!!!!!!!

I personally favor a flat tax like ten percent, make some new start up businesses (especially in the energy field) tax exempt for three years. And watch the Corps return from overseas and watch the jobs take off. 

MORE JOBS....MORE TAX REVENUE, Less regulation and Govt Poobahs to enforce them the more revenue in the kitty, maybe start paying down the national debt.

Now the only people I've heard say ANYTHING like this and support a flat tax is TED CRUZ and Perhaps Rand Paul.

Of course the rino and ht eleftists are gonna fight it tooth and nail...thats why you need somebody with string leadership skills and the proper moral conceince to back it up.

Donald Trump....who functions more as a dictator within his organizations has neither, for that matter none of the other R candidates are any better.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2015, 05:54:40 AM
One of the best ways to reduce spending is reduce the govt, no more Hot tubbing Las Vegas Junkets for GS 15's and no more $500 hammers bought by GSA.

Combing agencies is the best way to start. I'd put the EPA in with the Dept of energy and make them both figure out a way to get private energy production on a mass and efficient scale, thus reducing the budget of both agencies. Then I'd start in on their resources and start taking away their vehicles and give them bikes or skateboards, no more drones, no more guns and ammo, no more playing cowboys or cops and robbers, no more enforcement of your own regulations and stand down from all enforcement until some of these restrictive destructive regs are stricken from the books.

Back off the regs and lets get the coal, oil, natural gas industries up and running and create some jobs.

I'd auction just about everything they have to the public and pay off the national debt.

Off course I wouldn't stop with these two agencies but DEFUND AS MANY AS I COULD AND AUCTION OFF THEIR RESOURCES (iNCLUDING BUILDINGS) AS WEll. GOVT HIRING FREEZE!!!!!!!!

I personally favor a flat tax like ten percent, make some new start up businesses (especially in the energy field) tax exempt for three years. And watch the Corps return from overseas and watch the jobs take off. 

MORE JOBS....MORE TAX REVENUE, Less regulation and Govt Poobahs to enforce them the more revenue in the kitty, maybe start paying down the national debt.

Now the only people I've heard say ANYTHING like this and support a flat tax is TED CRUZ and Perhaps Rand Paul.

Of course the rino and ht eleftists are gonna fight it tooth and nail...thats why you need somebody with string leadership skills and the proper moral conceince to back it up.

Donald Trump....who functions more as a dictator within his organizations has neither, for that matter none of the other R candidates are any better.

The country would change almost instantly  with a plan like that.

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
You are incredibly naive.

I am.  This whole time, I figured even liberals could understand first grade economics.  I was wrong.

QuoteYou probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.

Yes.  Rich people spend money.  I know you disagree, but it's actually true.

Quote
If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.

Wrong.