From our friends at the WSJ
* * *
Americans aching for a return to faster economic growth can get close to suicidal watching this year’s presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton promises more government across the board...
...while Donald Trump aims to disrupt the flow of products and people across our borders.
* TYPICAL WSJ DISINFORMATION RE: TRUMP (AND INDEED RE: ALL NONE ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATES).
One rare reason to step back from the ledge is that every Republican contender is promoting some kind of bold tax reform, and this week Ben Carson unveiled the boldest.
The retired neurosurgeon is offering a flat tax of 14.9% on personal and corporate income, “with no deductions, no tax shelters and no loopholes.”
* SOUNDS GOOD TO ME...!!!
Yes, that includes saying goodbye to the popular deductions...
* "POPULAR" DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE WITH "POSITIVE..."
...for mortgage interest and charitable donations.
* TWO CASES IN POINT! GET RID OF THE DEDUCTIONS! PEOPLE WILL STILL BUY HOUSES; PEOPLE WILL STILL CONTRIBUTE TO CHARITIES!
He’d exempt taxpayers earning up to 150% of the federal poverty line from forking over the 14.9%, but he’d still ask them to make a “de minimis” payment each year so all Americans will be treated as “citizen-owners.”
* BRAVO...!!! (SO... TWO RATES...)
Simplicity is one virtue of a flat tax, but the economic benefits go beyond that. People would be encouraged to work more, knowing that the next dollar they earn won’t be taxed at a higher rate than the last one. This is the insight that informed the Reagan tax revolution and ignited the economic boom of the 1980s.
Under Mr. Carson’s flat tax, Americans would be encouraged to invest because there would be no more double taxation. Each dollar earned is taxed only at its source. So once a dollar of business profits is taxed, it is not taxed again when distributed to shareholders.
* ACTUALLY... A BETTER PLAN WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE "BUSINESS TAXES" AND TAX PROFITS AT THE END POINT: THE PROFIT TAKER!
Once a worker earns and pays taxes on a dollar in wages, she is not taxed again for the privilege of saving it.
* FOLKS... WHAT'S THIS MEAN FOR TRUST-FUND BABIES...? HMM? (THINK ABOUT IT...)
* AGAIN... IF WE'RE GONNA RELY UPON "INCOME" TAXES THEN ALL "INCOME" SHOULD BE TAXED EQUALLY WITHIN BRACKETS.
Individuals pay no taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest or death.
* NOPE. INDIVIDUALS SHOULD PAY TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS, DIVIDENDS, INTEREST, AND (CASH) INHERITANCES. THAT'S MY POSITION... AND IT SHOULD BE YOURS!
Businesses could immediately expense 100% of their capital investments.
* WRONG AGAIN! "EXPENSE" THE PRIVATE JET TRAVEL? "EXPENSE" THE CORPORATE "ENTERTAINMENT?" "EXPENSE" THE CEO's CHAUFFEUR AND HIS COMPANY PROVIDED APARTMENTS IN MANHATTAN AND ELSEWHERE? NO! THE ANSWER IS NO "BUSINESS TAXES" AND SIMPLY TAX "INCOME" AS IT COMES TO THE INDIVIDUAL EARNING IT - NO MATTER HOW IT'S EARNED.
The Tax Foundation says the Carson plan would provide the most economic growth, which would offset lost deductions and raise after-tax incomes for all Americans.
* WHO ARE YOU GONNA BELIEVE - THE TAX FOUNDATION OR WILLIAM R. BARKER?!
(*HUGE FRIGGIN' GRIN*)
Mr. Carson calls his plan a “true” flat tax and our longtime contributor Judy Shelton calls it “the real McCoy.” Although Mr. Carson doesn’t call out his rivals Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul by name, he notes that his plan does not derive the bulk of its revenues from what amounts to “a European-style value-added tax (VAT). Adding a VAT on top of the income tax would not only impose an immense tax increase on the American people, but also become a burdensome drag on the U.S. economy.”
* I OPPOSE A VAT.
This is the danger of proposing a VAT, as Messrs. Cruz and Paul do to replace the corporate income and payroll taxes. A VAT, a form of sales tax at each stage of production, has proven to be a money machine for foreign governments as the rate is raised over time.
* YEP... AND THE MORE YOU FEED THE BEAST... THE MORE "FOOD" THE BEAST DEMANDS!
Mr. Carson’s flat tax would generate as much if not more economic growth as any plan introduced by this year’s candidates.
He also deserves credit for candor in saying explicitly that middle-class voters will lose some of their most prized deductions.
We like several other proposals that lower rates in return for fewer deductions, but Mr. Carson and Jeb Bush are the most honest about the trade-offs.
Mr. Carson is a presidential long-shot in a year when policy proposals don’t seem to count for much. But his guiding principle is good counsel for all candidates. As Mr. Carson explains: “My overarching goal for tax policy is that it should raise revenue — not redistribute wealth, micromanage free citizens or intrude on privacy.”