Perry’s Flat Tax Proposal Puts Him Back in the Saddle Again
by AWR HawkinsAround lunchtime on Tuesday I sat down in front of my computer, opened foxews.com, and immediately texted my brother: “Gov. Perry is back!” I did this because the largest portion of the Fox News homepage was taken up by a photo of a confident looking Gov. Perry telling Americans about his economic plan – “Cut, Balance, and Grow” – and it was obvious he was swinging at pitches that were in his wheelhouse.
In such a setting, and on such a topic, Gov. Perry exudes the kind of confidence that took him to the top of the polls in August.
Far less complicated than McRomney’s “59 point” plan, Perry’s plan can be easily summed up thus:
- Introduce a 20 percent flat rate on individual and corporate income, down from the current top rate of 35 percent.
- Provide an exemption of $12,500 per person, so that a family of four would face no tax on its first $50,000 in income.
- Preserve deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations, and state and local taxes on incomes below $500,000.
- Allow anyone to file under the current system if they choose.
- Shift to a territorial system of corporate taxation, allowing corporations to repatriate profits still parked overseas at a 5.25 percent rate.
This plan is a winner for Gov. Perry because it’s self-explanatory, brief enough for everyone to get their minds around, and, most importantly, rooted in the pursuit of decreasing the size of government while simultaneously increasing liberty.
The brevity of Perry’s plan also highlights the absolute ridiculousness of McRomney’s 59-point plan: a plan which is so complicated that when printed out, it forms a “160-page book” (How big of a government does Romney want if his economic plan takes up 160 pages?).
Again, the brevity of Perry’s plan proves the truth of his oft-spoken desire to make the federal government as inconsequential in the lives of Americans as possible.
If I were advising Perry’s team, I’d tell them to get ready to make McRomney explain his plan point by point in the next debate. And when he says he doesn’t have time or if he says “I’ll explain mine if you explain yours,” Perry can sum his up his five points quickly and let everyone see McRomney for what he is – another big government politician who’s trying to trick us into thinking he’s a conservative.
Although no one knows what’s going to happen as the primary season continues, one thing is for sure; it’s good to see Gov. Perry climb back in the saddle again.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
92 Comments
No it does not! This is nothing more than a patch…to get him through the campaign and nothing more and to compete with the others who have also come up with their own plans!
It sounds to me…like Obamacare…you can keep your old insurance if you like…instead…he says…you can keep your old tax rate…if you like!
One in the same…just like their Bilderberg connection!
Bilderberg appointed = http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/2011/07/18/gov....
Radical Islamic friends = http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/perrys_pro...
Tex-Mex Healthcare? = http://bigpeace.com/nmachiavelli/2011/09/02/huh-g....
This is just a cap, and it doesn't sufficiently broaden the tax base, IMHO.
If it's "ease of sale" that he's looking for, then this is MUCH easier than a Fair Tax derivative or a true Flat Tax, but even on his site the details are a bit vague as to how he's going to reduce spending as much as required to match the loss in revenue.
Also, keeping the corporate rate at 20% will be helpful, but not enough to bring business back from overseas.
It's a start.
"Allow anyone to file under the current system if they choose."
OOooops! That's a problem.
Texas Leadership Fails Texans
http://texas.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/tex...
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington
I'd vote for Perry over Romney anytime.
Well, it will make every Republican a hypocrite because tax revenues will go down and he has not stated what programs he will cut to prevent a massive deficit.
So, Perry has a "Me, too" plan. He shot holes in the Cain plan, then came out with his own flat tax.
Does he ever have an original thought?
And the plan really isn't a plan at all since anyone can take it or leave it. You can always go with the existing tax code if the 20% is a heavier liability for you.
And you can bet that they will.
So, how is that possibly going to help?
It is an all things to all people plan. I call it pandering.
Any income tax is immoral. It tells me that I have no right to a certain percentage of my income. No right to a portion of my property. No right to a portion of what I produce. At it's core, no right to a portion of my mind, of my life. Since taxes are needed for essential functions of government, the only tax idea that makes any sense to me is The Fair Tax.
OK,…let me get this straight now,…….
We have a tax system that has been in place,…..
for generations and is one that we all are in agreement,…..
for generations that it has to be abolished.
Cain has this 9-9-9 plan and,…….
now Perry has his plan with ,………
the rest of the pack sure to come up with their "plan".
Cain is already tweeking his plan and Perry has admitted that,……
he is missing some (major) details.
What would be nice if they (Republican field) all just agreed,…….
on eliminating the current system and promising that a "plan",……..
would be intelligently and calmly derived…….
within an agreed upon timetable.
When he gets as specific as Ron Paul, then we can start talking.
On another note;
Obama stated today that if we do not vote for him……..
we can count on being on our own.
When did he start campaigning for the Republican Party,…..??????
First off Tax bills originate in the House, he is not running for Congress. Second, the office of the President is very much a managerial position. It is the Presidents responsibility to make sure that the budget money is spent wisely. No Solyndras solar power companies etc,. That Federal Agencies are kept in control. Fast and Furious comes to mind. The problem with any tax program is the loopholes exemptions etc. Look how fast Cains 9-9-9 went 9-0-9 for people below a certain income. The President can Veto bills that have loop holes etc, and then companies would have to pay taxes and Warren Buffet wouldn't still be arguing over a 2004 tax bill.
None of the Candidates will discuss what the Presidents job is how they will do it. They just want to be President, not to actually have to do the job.
I completely agree!
Like him, or not…. awesome timing…..
the current tax code is untenable. Although it could be worse, this should be better.
In an unrelated story, Intuit is taking out an ad opposing Perry.
Do you know what they call people who rely on themselves?
Adults.
Like we can expect congress to pass an amendment repealing the 16th Amendment? Even if they did, it would still need to ratified by three-fourths of the states. Without repeal, a Fair Tax is a no go.
Plus, every business will now be a tax collector and that 23% rate, which is really 30% will simply be "adjusted" by congress and sold to us a "just a penny".
Ron Paul is supposed to be the taxpayers friend. Why hasn't he signed onto the Fair Tax??
If you would just eliminate everything from "One in the same" all the way to the bottom of your post you not not sound so whacky. You have a lot of really good points, then you seem to go all looney tunes on us.
Now give me my zero and I will keep reading down the page.
Well, sisty, that way all those illegals we are giving free education for their kids can sign up and start paying taxes. Uh–OH, they can't do that, the INS might come get them. Oh crap, never mind.
Damn right and you(?) wonder why people are confused.
Adult Americans to be a tad more precise.
Where is his scheduled list of cuts?
His plan cannot touch this one: http://www.ronpaul.com/media/RestoreAmericaPlan.p...
"…………prevent a massive deficit………"
prevent,…..?????
PREVENT,……?????
That train left the station back in 2008 and……….
has been picking up steam ever since.
What , deficits a problem ,………now.
Not one of them is the perfect canidate.
All have warts. It will be the last man standing that I HAVE to vote for. Anyone but Obozo will just have to be good enough.
I like the way you think.
me too!!
Yeeeee Haw! Pin it down before they keep escalating the number. Only a few years ago the idea was that 17% would work. Seriously, RIck- 20%? How about maintaining your place in that saddle by showing us a littany of Big Government excessive expenditure cuts and trimming that figure back into the teens?
I was startin' to get interested in Rick's plan until I found out it keeps the big fat 73.000 page, kazillion employee government bureaucracy in place………….well, can't piss off all the tax attorneys or anything, can we now?
Did you see him on O'Reilly last night? Or was it the night before? Anyway, he said the whole immigration thingy was purely a financial decision……………..right.
Thumbs Up everybody……….F'n Trolls
please read up on "Hauser's Law". Tax revenue is more dependent on GDP, not the tax rates.
You must hate reality, don't you Bo?
actually stole that from opinionjournal today.
Good. Can't wait.
Sorry, but he's already proven that he can't compete on the debate stage and being able to give Obama the "Well, there you go again" treatment will be essential. Perry has already said that his participation in the debates was a big mistake. If, by his own admission, he couldn't compete there, why should we give him a chance at the big game when much more is at stake?
No, I do believe the train left the station in 2001.
Obviously they are and I have never said the were not.
It is a two edged sword. The problem you have is the economy is simply not going to go boom over night under any plan. As a result, this plan will immediately reduce revenue, which will in turn, increase the deficits.
Is there a single web site that keeps track of the Republican candidates so I can see what their stances are?
I am still without a solid choice yet and the only way I'd vote democrap is from the grave.
Back in the saddle?
Yup, for the dog and pony show……….
Sounds like your either "for or against us" to me.
Guess I'm on my own,
hmmm… see "stimulus, obama"
Romney seems like a another "break the system for the big agenda" thing to me.
If he take the Republican candidacy, I think we are screwed for another 4 years
Lame. The problem is a fedgov involved in a host of activities for which it has no Constitutional authority. Dismantle the criminal welfare-regulatory state and the tax code will be an easy fix. As usual, the Stupid Party is attacking the symptom, not the cause.
Part 2 of the WSJ article is cut federal spending to 18% of GDP. Still too Effing high for me but much better than the current 25%+ and climbing under the current Turd in Chief.
I know…I couldn't stop laughing at Bo's prevention post.
Bo apparently does not fully understand the scope. Not all of us here love Bush for the MASSIVE increase in spending in conjunction with the progressive/marxists and complicit turds of the establishment Repubs.
More Tea Party boys, and girls, to slash the $h!T out of spending is what is needed. Not the crapola from August trying to convince Taxpaying Citizens they cut spending while adding $2 trillion to the debt.
HMMMM…. please refer to "derivative based upon sub-prime mortgage, governmental regulation under Bush".
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. It appears that you live in a static world.
Think this through logically, if you truly are capable.
Part 1. If a company has a less tax liability by 15% along with reduced labor costs (healthcare included) and NOT having a public sector freight train regulating them to death, how much additional goods and services will they be able to produce?
Part 2. If a family of four making $100K has an additional disposable income of $6000 per year, how much additional additional goods and services will they be able to purchase?
Part 3. If I have $50K in stock and want to sell it, currently after one year I pay $7500 tax. If there is no tax, how much more additional income will I have to invest and or how much more additional goods and service will I be able to purchase?
Back in the saddle again?
No sir. I beg to differ.
"immediately reduce revenue, which will in turn, increase the deficits."
I wish one of the candidates would suggest that the federal government go to a zero base budget every year, which is to say that spending would be reliant upon the money coming in instead of having spending on autopilot.
Screwed up my math.
The tax liability for a company would drop from the current top rate of 35% to 20% is a 42% reduction of liability.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…. see Barney Frank, Fannie Mae. Democrats in congress would not let President Bush have the reforms he sought. They claimed Fannie Mae was healthy. See … a psychiatrist. You're nuts.
Let me help you out. It will be easy. Let's say everyone pays a 20% tax which goes to the government. A politician wants to cut the rate down to 2%. In order for the government to bring in the same amount of revenue, the economy would have to grow by a factor of ten. Who knows if it will. However, it is not going to grow this much overnight. As a result, if the government continues to spend the same amount of money, it will increase its deficit.
Oh, the conservative fairy tale of Fannie, Freddie, Barney and the phantom "Bush reforms". Let's start from the last. The Republicans controlled both the Senate, House and White House from 2002-2006. Assuming they put forth the reforms which you allege, why weren't they passed? The only way the Democrats could stop them, is a filibuster. Would you please provide a link to this filibuster. Moving on to Fannie and Freddie. This fiasco is going to cost the U.S. taxpayer about $400 billion. This is not chump change and I am not defending the action. However, we immediately backed these loans when Fannie and Freddie became insolvent. Therefore, they did not cause the crash. Does $1.2 trillion ring a bell? This is the amount banks needed to borrow under TARP to remain solvent. Since we immediately backed the Fannie and Freddie debt, if a bank had this debt as an asset, it would not be insolvent because the asset would be good. No, the $1.2 trillion figure was sub-prime mortgage derivatives not associated with Fannie and Freddie. No run along. You have no clue what you are spewing.
You asked for a link, you've got it. Dodd threatened a filibuster. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12313722055056258...
Also, the Boston Globe (owned by the NYT), blames Barney.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opini...
Now you run along.
GDP is a lousy meter of, well, lots of stuff. It is manipulated, and it includes government spending. "Let's spend 10 trillion dollars this year. Hey, look at that awesome GDP!"
I can see the point you're making, but I just wanted to point out measuring GDP is kind of like how they measure inflation nowadays. It's kind of rigged and kind of has bs in it.
Ron Paul's plan cuts one trillion dollars his first year and balances the budget in three years. I don't recall if it does zero base budgeting, but it does freeze spending in numerous areas. Everyone go look it up. You might just like it.
Perry's plan is ok, but I still prefer Ron Paul's income tax plan:
"Abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing."
In a simple world such as Bo's,…..
one concludes, if you are AGAINST Obama's spending,,…….
one must, therefore, be FOR Bush's spending.
No. I just do not think you were marching in the street at a Koch Brothers, er, Tea party rally in 2002 regarding the deficit, were you?
HMMMMM,…please refer to the CR act, started by Carter and,….
put on steroids by Clinton (as well as Bush's ineptness to do away this Dem nonsense).
Better still Bo lets take your reasoning to its ultimate conclusion and,……
let us refer to Adam and the apple.
HMMM. A "threatened filibuster" put Bush on the run. The only proof you have is Karl Rove's statement. I want a vote in the House and the Senate.
"………..In order for the government to bring in the same amount of revenue, the economy would have to grow by a factor of ten……."
Or the government would have to cut spending by a factor of,…………
DUUUHHHH.
Just like I am sure you have sense enough to,……..
distance yourself from the Occupy "rallies"
My Bo: the big easy.
Well, if you want a vote in the house and senate, I suggest you work on getting elected.
As for anything else, you're moving the goal posts after the game is over. Your turn for a link — one where Christopher Dodd denies he threatened a filibuster.
And a threat of a filibuster is enough to derail legislation (in case you haven't noticed).
Sorry, you LOST. Because you are a LOSER.
Absolutely.
No, I have not lost. The only proof you have of a "threatened" filibuster, is Karl Rove's statement. HMMM You do not think he has just a slight personal interest in this, do you? More importantly, he is the only one who is claiming there was a filibuster threat. If they had the goods on Dodd, this would have come out a long time ago. As far as proof that Dodd did not threaten a filibuster, you should know you can not prove a negative.
Thank you for proving my point. In my original post, I said Perry has not announced what programs he will cut.
Rick Perry? Are you serious? The guy will be guaranteed to disappoint. He has already shown you who he truly is, whether it's the "heartless" comment about illegals or the HPV vaccine debacle (and he should consider himself lucky that the Trans-Texas Corridor crap hasn't come up yet). As for the HPV issue, yes, he was man enough to admit it was a mistake and he owned up to it, which is much more than can be expected from most politicians these days. But if he truly stood on conservative principles he would have never done it in the first place.
With all that being said, can he beat Obama? Yes, absolutely he can. In fact, he would demolish him. Don't underestimate his ability to run an effective campaign. But the man has questionable conservative credentials. It all comes down to whether you just want "Anybody but Obama" or whether you want to bring principles back into the White House.
I want government to get cut right down to Constitutional basics and Ron Paul is the only candidate I'm seeing that would be serious about doing that. He also believes in abolishing the income tax completely so that is a big plus to me. The only other candidate I can see myself voting FOR (instead of just voting against Obama) is Herman Cain.
Why oh why do you insist the money earned by individual citizens is FIRST the government's?
Why oh why does the government need all this money in the first place. This type of spending is doing nothing but stripping the private sector of property.
You need to get your head wrapped around the fact the money you earn from work you perform, if you do, is your PRIVATE PROPERTY. When the government taxes your personal income at ANY rate, this is taking YOUR private property. This problem is then compounded by the enormous WELFARE STATE, also known as government workers, via the money laundering scheme that takes placxe in DC.
Karl Marx was very clear when he stated in his manifesto that is the absolute goal to ABOLISH PERSONAL PROPERTY.
The answer is NOT to increase spending, but cut the hell out of government spending.
I would think Dodd would have denied it. But he hasn't. YOU LOST. NOW GO AWAY. I provided the link. You can't match it because YOU ARE A LOSER.
Paul Ryan has endorsed it. Jim DeMint and Mike Spence are already drafting the legislation.
Yeh, there,…ah…sure thing there Bo,….
sure thing,……..
your "point" has been proven.
Agreed, I dont like perry all that much, but much better than rommel…er…romney.
"rooted in the pursuit of decreasing the size of government" Really? How? It doesn't eliminate anything, it just adds a new way to file IN ADDITION to maintaining all the old ways. This will require an increase in the IRS staff, and therefore the government, not a decrease.
On top of that it does not broaden the tax base, those not paying taxes now will still not be paying taxes under this plan. This is one of my personal pet peeves, this is why we need a consumption tax, everyone pays a little. This will stop one of the number one reasons for illegal immigration. When everything is no longer free, fewer will see a benefit in coming here illegally, and those that still do will at least be paying a share of what they are using. I do not see supporting and tax reform that does not include a way to even the scales on illegals using our resources without contributing to the pot.
I suppose you consider the "American Thinker" and Breitbart's "Big Peace" looney too?
Because the links are from them…and they are true! You just can't handle the truth!
Enough said to one so deaf, so blind and so dumb that they have to make jokes to make up for their mental inadequacies!
Oh I just love it when you talk dirty to me.
Okay, here is what I think. Rick Perry rode the coat-tail of George W all his political career. He is a good old boy and just more of the same thing that we have had for years in Washington. The only way I would vote for him is "if" he is the last man standing. Anyone is better than Obozo.
Cain is a fresh approach, but too green for the job.
Bachman, a good candidate. I will throw my support her way.
My ideal team would be Bauchman/Cain
All the rest are just the same old same old, with exception to Palin. She would be a great VP for any of them.
I am not as blind as you think or dumb as you think, I just like to have a good time. Especially, when dealing with people who are extremely excessive and hard headed. Multiple times I have tried to make peace with you and you would not have it. So, from time to time, you will be entertained by Ricky.
No, I get all of him I can take in the news. He was at A & M about the same time as me. In my opinion he is just the same old same old. We need everything in Washington retooled, including the people.
However, should he be the last man standing, I will vote for him. Anyone is better than Obozo.
Let's start with the so called "Texas Dream Act," – you might start by actually reading the law in question, cause a dream act it's anything but. Remember, the Texas public school system is supported by state sales taxes – there is not an income taxes in Texas. That means that anyone and everyone purchasing something in that state support the public school system. Also remember that the US Supreme Court has mandated that all students in the state must be educated regardless of citizenship. Also keep in mind that to qualify for instate tuition rates, an individual must have gone to a Texas public school for at least three years. I know, mundane, but very much relevant to this discussion.
So, given these conditions, Perry said ok, if you are illegal and you feel entitled to our secondary education system, then there must be conditions. Enter the requirement to begin the path to citizenship. Did you get that? I mean, hey, reading is fundamental you know. That's right, READ. The law actually requires that illegals start their paperwork and of the roughly 170 thousand eligible, only 17 HUNDRED have taken him up on it. Some dream act, don't ya think!
Bilderberg connection: what can I say, two meetings in 11 years does not a Bilderberg member make – get a life. Clinton, Romney, Obama, Bush, Biden, and oh so many more are on record as being current and active members of the group and in attendance EVERY year since becoming so.
Oh the Islam "issue." You know, I've heard nothing but condemnation of the religious group for NOT standing against radical Islam – here's a group that Perry associated that believes not in RADICAL Jihad, but SELF Jihad (you know, much like Christianity, they battle themselves in order to become better Muslims.) Yet there you are, all over him like white on rice… for what exactly? KNOW your facts, you look a bit silly. Having this MODERATE form of Islam included in the Texas curriculum, which is what he did, seems to be the EXACT thing the AMERICAN population has been clamoring for more than a decade.
I’m disappointed, in a democracy, honest and thorough scrutiny of anyone’s records seeking a public office is not only the prerogative of the electorate, but it is its duty – time to step up to that plate and stop listening to the pundits with an agenda.
Hate to say this, but your information about Perry is just about all wrong, but that's ok, it just means the establishment punditry out there that would have Romney as the next President is alive and well and unfortunately the public no more researches today than they ever have. But let me take your issues point by point.
This is post #1 in response to your rediculous rant, the rest seemed to have posted above though.
I don't really care if you like my little games with Eileen or not. We have some history.
Don't really care if you like my opinion on Perry or not. I live in his state and have seen him in action. He was at A & M with me.
BTW, you manifesto would rivel the unibomber, nice job.
Wrong…
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/09...
Everybody in the country who once was for Perry…understands what he did…why can't you?
That really isn't a question…just a comment so don't bother answering…it already has been!
Nobody says he was a MEMBER! They don't take on NEW members…only invite possible candidates to be their puppets/pawns from time to time…like Edwards…Sanford…Perry and others to see if they meet their standards of being weak and flawed so they can be manipulated!
Again Pam Geller…is not a 'fly by night' fighter against radical Islam…a serious…serious…writer and outspoken expert on the subject…she says…it…you better believe it! The facts she states…speak for themselves!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/perrys_pro...
So it is ALL wrong…based on YOUR opinion? Do you actually work for Pitiful Perry the Bilderberg?
I am a conservative woman who is fighting to save the future of my children and the great Republic in which we live. I am doing MY best to vet all candidates and when I find actual facts from reputable sources about a candidate…it helps me make MY decision on them. In addition…I like to pass them along for others to be informed to make THEIR decision.
Your coming against the truths of what 'is…is'….doesn't mean they are wrong…only that they are RIGHT because you are trying to deflect from the truths of what 'is…is'!
And let me also debunk your theory about my wanting Romney…because I have vetted him also and found him wanting and 'he' also will never get my vote…for being too close to the CFR, Trilateral and the Bilderberg!
Have you have heard about the six degrees of separation? Well here is a great one on Mitt Romney and his associations with the CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral members!
And one wonders where ‘he’ is getting ‘his’ money from?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/...
And his foreign policy advisors…are we getting more of the same ol’…same ol’?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/mitt-romney-ann...
And how many of these ‘advisors’ are on the membership list of the CFR?
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?l...
And let me give you another little tidbit…I vetted Gingrich and found he IS a member of the CFR
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?l...
Cain…I have issues with his work at the Federal Reserve and not wanting an audit. The Federal Reserve which is the financial arm of the Bilderberg in America
Huntsman…worked for the false messiah in our White House
"Pot" Paul…great message…the messenger is the problem here
Only (2) left that I will consider voting for and that I am still vetting…Rep Bachmann and Rick Santorum
GET IT? Vetting is the only way to get the RIGHT candidate for the rough road ahead…and it isn't going to be Pitiful Perry the Bilderberg!
For someone that didn't need a response, you sure had a lot to comment about. Nevertheless, like I said, do your own research – you might be surprised. Ignorance is when you never knew, idiocy is when you were pointed to the truth and refused to listen. I fear you are guilty of the latter. I could care less about Pam Geller – she sure has enough folks out there debating the verocity of her statements – HOWEVER, after doing just a little bit of independent research, I found it interesting that your assumptions were all wrong. Oh yea, my opinion is when I comment as you did – facts are when I point to verifiable information. Like say, THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION HE SIGNED INTO LAW? Oh wait, how about Romney's connection to Bilderbert – oh no, that can't be!
Good day .
I never said YOU wanted Romney – only that the establishment does and their effort to put out inaccurate information seems to be working. But geesh, you seem to have gotten all fired up now haven't you?
Try looking up just some information on the Council on Foreign Relations – quite an interesting history don't you think?
i guess idiocy is the category you are in?
Enough said…you have a good day also…I always do!
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?l...
Enough said!
Ditto same for the Clown Cain. Perry is not a good debater bu is better than Romney/Cain by far.
Perry's Plan is far better than the Clown Cain's Liberal Tax and Spend Scheme.
You must be logged in to post a comment.