MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Scott Burns: Don’t Dismiss Rand Paul’s Tax Plan

TedTed
in Off-Topic
FYI: Most news media dismissed Rand Paul’s tax plan, like his candidacy for President, as a non-starter. Reports failed to grasp a gigantic part of the plan. They also wrongly concluded that the flat tax was a big break for high-income people but not so good for middle-income people.

Let’s take a closer look at what the plan offers.
Regards,
Ted
http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/dont_dismiss_rand_pauls_tax_plan

Comments

  • msf
    There's a lot that can be said, but I think three words encapsulate the themes: VAT, and "dynamic scoring".

    If you do a search on the former, you'll find objections across the political spectrum (for differing reasons, of course).

    On the latter, Paul has outdone his colleagues. They sometimes argue that giving everyone tax cuts is not "voodoo economics"; rather that the macroeconomic effects (GDP growth) can pay for 100% of the cuts. Paul has taken this a step farther, in suggesting that not only will the tax cuts pay for themselves, but that they will more than pay for themselves - that they will close the budget deficit.

    I've enjoyed Mr. Burns' writing over time, but it seems he's lately moved away from his comfort zone (personal finance - individuals' perspective) to taxation issues where he only sees one side - how many dollars will I (the individual worker/investor) get - and he's not looking carefully at the costs.
  • VintageFreakVintageFreak
    Excuse me while I throw up...
    ... I'm sorry I'm not back yet. My innards are continually in upheaval.

    I don't need 10 reasons to dismiss and or not dismiss something. I just need omitted. Something omitted does not mean it exists or does not exist.

    Romney will stay pay 13% tax under this plan UNLESS it is clear stated it applies to EVERYONE.
  • davidrmorandavidrmoran
    Where does it say how much money this great new plan would raise, compared with the swampy situation we have now? Did I miss something? How do the outcomes score in terms of what $ we need to have to do the stuff we do?

    I also would like to know what he drinks and smokes now. Is this just a knockoff idle email-type blog thing for a slow week?
  • msf
    edited July 2015
    VintageFreak said:

    Romney will stay pay 13% tax under this plan UNLESS it is clear stated it applies to EVERYONE.

    The best thing to do is usually to go to the source (what little there is):

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Blow+Up+the+Tax+Code+and+Start+Over&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (The WSJ opinion column by Rand.)

    "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%. "

    As you wrote, it's what's omitted that's interesting. Like Romney keeping his tax-sheltered gazillion dollar IRA. And passing that to his heirs w/o estate tax. (That's something Mr. Burns forgot to mention about Paul's proposal.)

  • msf
    edited July 2015
    davidrmoran said:

    Where does it say how much money this great new plan would raise, compared with the swampy situation we have now? Did I miss something? How do the outcomes score in terms of what $ we need to have to do the stuff we do?

    I was trying to stick with qualitative observations (e.g. that Paul seems to be "scoring" the tax cut benefits higher than anyone else has dared do), but for some firmer figures, here's CTJ's take:
    http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/06/rand_pauls_tax_plan_would_blow.php

  • davidrmorandavidrmoran
    Thanks much; quite as I thought, comically. I had assumed there was something new here since Burns was writing about it. But it's the same old confidence fairy shit.
    Maybe Paul should rerun the number at 20% flat and $100k exemption. Or something. The guy's mind is amazingly bad for someone supposedly otherwise.
  • VintageFreakVintageFreak
    edited July 2015
    davidrmoran said:

    Thanks much; quite as I thought, comically. I had assumed there was something new here since Burns was writing about it. But it's the same old confidence fairy shit.
    Maybe Paul should rerun the number at 20% flat and $100k exemption. Or something. The guy's mind is amazingly bad for someone supposedly otherwise.

    To the point made above, about going to the source. Now, I want to know where in print someone has opined Ryan is a genius. Besides I have said this before. Beware an educated !#$ than a stupid one.
Sign In or Register to comment.