The Pawlenty Plan/My plan.

[MinnesotaBrant]

I just listend the GOP prez candidate Pawlenty's economic speech today and wow it sounds alot like something I came up with on the internet several times. I might even have posted it here. Here goes:

On the individual rates we need a simpler — fairer — and flatter tax system overall. I propose just two rates — 10% — and 25%.
Under my plan — those who currently pay no income tax would stay at a zero rate. After that — the first fifty-thousand dollars of income or one-hundred thousand for married couples — would be taxed at 10%.
Everything above that would be taxed at 25%. That’s it.


If anybody has the slightest interest I will go dig it out. Is anybody scared yet? I got alot of opinions out there. Maybe the democrats will counter with the net worth tax system I came up with on JREF. The problem with a graduated flat tax is that it doesnt take into account who and who does not need the money. Thus you will have complience with people who do not need the money due to net worth and non complience with people who do.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Will "your" system bring in the same (or more) revenue as the current system? Or did you just pull 10% and 25% out of thin air?

Please provide relevant figures.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/tim-pawlenty-economic-policy_n_872304.html

Will "your" system bring in the same (or more) revenue as the current system? Or did you just pull 10% and 25% out of thin air?

Please provide relevant figures.

Heres the huff post take on it. My numbers were simular 50k for individuals at 10% and 100k for couples. I had a zero tax rate probably at 20k. I had a top tax rate of 30%. I called it a graduated tax rate with no deductions. Now here it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/tim-pawlenty-economic-policy_n_872304.html

I dunno, probably since half the people are paying no taxes. There is going to be a non complience problem with people who need the money. This has to be taken into account.

 

[hgc]

I just listend the GOP prez candidate Pawlenty's economic speech today and wow it sounds alot like something I came up with on the internet several times. I might even have posted it here. Here goes:
...

What do you think of Mr. Pawlenty's proposal to eliminate all Federal regulations for environmental and consumer protection? Is that a good idea?

 

[Snide]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/tim-pawlenty-economic-policy_n_872304.html

Heres the huff post take on it. My numbers were simular 50k for individuals at 10% and 100k for couples. I had a zero tax rate probably at 20k. I had a top tax rate of 30%. I called it a graduated tax rate with no deductions. Now here it is.

That is quite a liberal plan, even at a top rate of 25%, when you consider there are no deductions.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

That is quite a liberal plan, even at a top rate of 25%, when you consider there are no deductions.

Yeah wait til the lobbyists get to it. My take on it is that it is republican fantasyland that will never get enacted. My other agenda is gun control so when out new overlords seize control, they will not have to enact such a vicious police state.

 

[Tricky]

No deductions? Not for kids? Not for medical? So a single mom who makes $50,000 but whose daughter has a catastrophic illness that costs $25,000 still has to pay 25%, leaving her less than $13,000 to run a houshold?

This is the problem with simplistic tax formulae. They are too simplistic to take into account the many various situations that people have to face.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

no deductions? Not for kids? Not for medical? So a single mom who makes $50,000 but whose daughter has a catastrophic illness that costs $25,000 still has to pay 25%, leaving her less than $13,000 to run a houshold?

This is the problem with simplistic tax formulae. They are too simplistic to take into account the many various situations that people have to face.

yeah thats why you have to take into account net worth. For some 25k is nothing for others it will make you homeless. The tax code is broken in case you don't know.

 

[lomiller]

You left out the part where he thinks millionaires who earn their money by means other than a pay check from their employer pay taxes at a 0% rate. In any case his numbers don’t seem to add up unless he is planning to eliminate all military related spending or something equally extreme.

At the end of the day he is spouting the same stupidity the far right always falls for. Outside of mandatory spending like Medicare/Medicaid/Social security and the part for the discretionary budget that goes to defence related spending the US government only spends about $450 billion per year and very little of that is “fat”.

Anyone who is proposing reductions in tax levels needs to detail what they are going to cut from defence, social security, Medicare/Medicaid or who they are planning to borrow from in order to make up the difference. Pawlenty like all other Republican candidates simply refuses to deal with the basic realities of the budget and instead seems to think that as long as your belief in the ideology is strong enough reality doesn’t matter.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

You left out the part where he thinks millionaires who earn their money by means other than a pay check from their employer pay taxes at a 0% rate. In any case his numbers don’t seem to add up unless he is planning to eliminate all military related spending or something equally extreme.

At the end of the day he is spouting the same stupidity the far right always falls for. Outside of mandatory spending like Medicare/Medicaid/Social security and the part for the discretionary budget that goes to defence related spending the US government only spends about $450 billion per year and very little of that is “fat”.

Anyone who is proposing reductions in tax levels needs to detail what they are going to cut from defence, social security, Medicare/Medicaid or who they are planning to borrow from in order to make up the difference. Pawlenty like all other Republican candidates simply refuses to deal with the basic realities of the budget and instead seems to think that as long as your belief in the ideology is strong enough reality doesn’t matter.

I am pretty sure the military is running us and not the other way around. These politicans are trying to find the lowest common denominator.

 

[leftysergeant]

yeah thats why you have to take into account net worth. For some 25k is nothing for others it will make you homeless. The tax code is broken in case you don't know.

Of course it is. Republicons like Pawlenty broke it.

 

[lomiller]

I am pretty sure the military is running us and not the other way around.

Doubtful. US military spending seems much more driven by ideology views about militarism then the interest of the military itself. The relationship between the US military and government looks nothing like the relationship in countries where the military is in charge.

 

[hgc]

Doubtful. US military spending seems much more driven by ideology views about militarism then the interest of the military itself. The relationship between the US military and government looks nothing like the relationship in countries where the military is in charge.

It's not ideology; it's business. Businesses that make $$ from selling to DoD drive military spending. Militaristic ideology is just a marketing strategy.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Of course it is. Republicons like Pawlenty broke it.

yeah its broke. I am not sure who broke it but it is. My coworker made slightly more than me. He ate 200 dollar dinners with is wife and always flew first class when flying domestic. I couldn't afford mcDonalds, not to mention a flight. He got thousands back every year in taxes while the taxes I paid came of of my food and medicine money. Sometimes you have to experience life to know when the system is broke.

 

[Bilbo]

Nah, wait a minute.....you left out the "Google Test".

We can start by what I call 'The Google Test.' If you can find a service or a good available on Google, or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be providing that good or service," said Pawlenty. "The post office, the government printing office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others, were all built for a time in our country and a different chapter in our economy, when the private sector didn't adequately provide those services. But that's no longer the case."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...hed-taxes-and-government-programs.php?ref=fpb

He really wants to shrink government...to nothing?

 

[Tricky]

yeah its broke. I am not sure who broke it but it is. My coworker made slightly more than me. He ate 200 dollar dinners with is wife and always flew first class when flying domestic. I couldn't afford mcDonalds, not to mention a flight.

Sounds to me that what you are angling for is a luxury tax, with things like expensive dinners and first-class flights labeled as luxuries.

I couldn't afford mcDonalds, not to mention a flight. He got thousands back every year in taxes while the taxes I paid came of of my food and medicine money. Sometimes you have to experience life to know when the system is broke.

It sounds very much to me like you are saying the system is broken when somebody is getting more than you.

But I'm quite sure Pawlenty is not suggesting taxing based on net worth. No Republican would dare suggest such a thing. Unless there are deductions for important things, like medical and child-care expenses, any kind of flat tax on income is going to be hugely disproportional to those who need their whole income just to survive. That is why it is mostly well-off people who are so in favor of it.

 

[Puppycow]

The best part is Pawlenty's claim that we can have massive tax cuts and reduce the debt. Good luck!

Pawlenty says cuts will spur growth

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, called on Tuesday for across-the-board federal spending reductions and large tax cuts for businesses and individuals, saying that such policies would drive rapid economic growth, create jobs and reduce the federal debt.

Declaring that President Obama’s “central planning” doesn’t work, Mr. Pawlenty said that if he were elected president, he would aim for a national economic growth rate of 5 percent, a target he called “a big, positive goal” that is achievable.

Sounds like Newt's "radical right-wing social engineering" to me. Large tax cuts mean you need even larger spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

 

[leftysergeant]

Pawlenyty wants to sell the infrastructure to for-profit operators and wants us to think we will get adequate service at a bargain rate.

I put his IQ at about 75.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Sounds to me that what you are angling for is a luxury tax, with things like expensive dinners and first-class flights labeled as luxuries.

It sounds very much to me like you are saying the system is broken when somebody is getting more than you.

But I'm quite sure Pawlenty is not suggesting taxing based on net worth. No Republican would dare suggest such a thing. Unless there are deductions for important things, like medical and child-care expenses, any kind of flat tax on income is going to be hugely disproportional to those who need their whole income just to survive. That is why it is mostly well-off people who are so in favor of it.

I pretty much meant what I said. If I want to add further to it I will let you know as it is my idea after all. heh.

Oh, I guess on reading its not all that clear. I made 10.85 dollars an hour for 40 dollars a week. I could not afford to pay all my taxes on that. My coworker made 14 dollars an hour for the same job. He did not pay taxes and got 3,500 back from the govt. I barely made my rent while he ate nightly dinners for 100-200 dollars etc. I do admit that he lived with his rich parents with his 4 kids but there was more than that. I think I was proposing a graduated flat rate with deductions based on whether or not you can afford it. Ie. a net worth tax. Don't laugh. Since I made it up just now it most certainly will happen at some point. No I am not a member of some secret society that is running things even though my title is guildmaster of this non existant society.

 

[Tricky]

yeah thats why you have to take into account net worth.

I pretty much meant what I said. If I want to add further to it I will let you know as it is my idea after all. heh.

Yeah, you need to flesh this out a bit. Are you talking taxing income or wealth? Are you counting capital gains as income? What is your position on luxury taxes?

yeah thats why you have to take into account net worth. For some 25k is nothing for others it will make you homeless. The tax code is broken in case you don't know.

Oh, I guess on reading its not all that clear. I made 10.85 dollars an hour for 40 dollars hours a week. I could not afford to pay all my taxes on that. My coworker made 14 dollars an hour for the same job. He did not pay taxes and got 3,500 back from the govt.

(I made a correction that I think you meant.)

There is a whole lot of info left out from this, like how much tax was deducted from your payroll. Your co-worker did not get "$3,500" back from the government", he got a refund of that amount because he had a payroll deduction large enough to cover his taxes plus extra. There is mixed opinion on whether or not to take a large payroll deduction. On one hand, you get a nice refund. On the other hand, the government holds your money for part of a year without paying you interest.

The other thing is that it sounds like your co-worker is married and it sounds like you aren't. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm married too, and my wife makes a great deal less than me, so when we pool our incomes, our tax rate is lower because it's two people.

Lastly, doing the calculations at $10.85 per hour, you earn about $22,000 a year, which is one of the very lowest tax brackets. Indeed it is so low, that it is likely that they don't withold taxes at all. This is why you owe money at the end of the year. You need to put some money aside or ask your employer to withold some taxes so that you won't be stuck with this bill in April.

You are one of the people that would be badly hurt by a flat tax. Under your own plan, you'd owe only slightly less income tax than you pay now, but the government would probably have to slap on all sorts of sales taxes in order to make up for the lost income that your plan would cause. And sales taxes are "regressive", meaning they are much harder on people not making much money.

Maybe you should think this through some more. (And talk with your HR department about deducting taxes from your payroll.)