Think of how life would be simplified if your 1040 said .."How much did you make? Send the IRS 10%." We should encourage desirable behavior with subsidies that have sunset clauses, not tax breaks.

As for the estate tax, it should be adjusted for realistic, modern amounts, and maybe some items such as farm land or small business inventory can be exempted, but the basic idea of trying to prevent the rise of an aristocracy based on inherited wealth is a good one. The tax should not be repealed.

As a middle class person this plan is a tax increase for me and my wife (10%)and a huge tax cut for wealthly people. They love the idea of only paying 25%. They pay more right now. All this plan does is further gut the middle class so that 5% of the population can further surround themselves with Saudia Arabian style luxury.

Use your head and quit spouting off illogical liberal talking points. True economic growth occurs when CEO's of companies prosper and provide jobs and spend a ton of their money on other people's stuff too."

Beckster,

I welcome your response but I said nothing about raising taxes on businesses, only that cutting taxes on them is supposed to spur economic growth but we have seen time and time again that rarely does this actually occur. This is all beside the point I was making, and obviously should have made more obvious, that Thompson's plan does not have any provision to pay for the lost revenue which would result from his plan. How does he plan to replace this lost revenue? He hasn't shown any sign of supporting a reduction in military spending by closing the war in Iraq. He hasn't given us any reason to believe that he would support reducing federal spending in any other area, so what are we to think? I don't believe that increasing the tax on businesses is a good idea, as evidenced by my second post, and I do believe that successful businesses promote economic growth but I know from experience that businesses will do just about anything to avoid paying taxes and maximize their profits. Not only that, but large businesses focus on increasing their profits quarter to quarter and any reduction in that typically causes them to take action that hurts workers. It's very complex but I don't see how reducing the tax on businesses is going to generate enough revenue to pay for what Thompson's plan loses, particularly since we have no statement from him indicating how he would lower spending. Like Toni wrote, the theory is great but the country is going broke and simply lowering taxes without lowering spending isn't going to cut it.

Oh and Stephan, I could care less about political labels or whether I subscribe to orthodox Libertarian (or even Republican) views. I am much more concerned with a President who makes the correct decisions for this country. I do see the disparity in classes in this country when we need to argue about whether social security taxes should be paid proportionally by people making less than $97,500 a year, and everyone who makes more. I see a large disparity when there is an entire subset of the US which benefits directly from the influence of government and the money stream. Ideally, I'd like to do away with the IRS and its complicated tax code, but that is unreasonable without either reducing federal spending and the size of government, or replacing that lost revenue. It's simple dollars and sense, and this plan doesn't have it.

Hope that clears things up.

It was never intended to "fund" the programs that it now funds. This never-ending, no light at the end of the tunnel, tax EVERYTHING to pay for laziness was NOT the original intention.

I agree with abolishing the IRS.

&&&&&&&&&&&

Actually, if we were not in a war, the budget likely would be balanced. Taxes have been cut and tax revenues collected are at an all time high. Go figure.

****************

Interesting question. The same question relating to a multitude of issues can be asked of all the other candidates Republican and Democrat. Now that they are running, they ALL have great ideas, but we they advocates before? Not likely. This is the time for promises made and promises made to be broken. Frankly, I think Hillary is the worst offender...she's on full tilt promising everything to everyone.

Its about, zzzzzZZZZzz, snore, GRRUMBLE, HUH? WHAT? oh yeah, its about the best I can come up with between catching my Z's

LMAO

Ron Paul 2008

Oh, and libertarians don't particularly concern themselves with "classes" (with the notable exception of economic proposals that encourage socio-economic striation at the expense of the market's "creative destruction"–"creative destruction" being otherwised defined as the "American dream" model, in which enough sweat and ingenuity can make a "nothing" almost infinitely wealthy if he or she chooses to be) and almost always refuse Marx's notions of "class warfare."

Marx's framing of economics and history and, say, that of Murray Rothbard's (or Hayek's or Milton Friedman's or Ludwig Von Mises's) are both incompatible and antithetical.

One idea behind reducing corporate taxes is motivated by the desire to get them to pay any taxes at all, which most don't (with other effects of reducing the relative profitability of offshoring, and increasing the overall stimulation of growth).

At 35%, it's cheaper for most corporations to pay millions of dollars per annum to accounting firms in order to show a loss (and pay nothing in terms of taxes). Likewise, it often costs the IRS more to do a corporate audit than is recovered by said audit, reducing the risk of the deception's discovery.

At some lower level (not sure if 27% is low enough) it becomes less costly (in combined money and risk) to pay the taxes instead of the accountants, which allows for greater federal revenue (and hopefully more tax cuts for the individual).

Some aspects of your comment tell me that you are new to libertarian ideas or the Republican party or both. I welcome you and want to give you a few tips:

1. While I, myself, am undecided, Fred, unlike Giuliani or Huckabee (for unrelated reasons), is not the enemy of libertarian or classically liberal ideas. Other than Paul, he's one of the most libertarian candidates to have a shot at the Republican ticket since Reagan (and Goldwater before him).

2. The "orthodox" libertarian response to any proposal about corporate anything is not that CEOs make too much, but that the Corporation is a figment of the State's imagination, as are all limited liability partnerships, nonprofits, etc. The only function of such priva legis entitees is in the subversion of the market (stacking the deck against smaller, non-incorporated businesses). That's why CEO's are so rich–they operate with an unfair business advantage conferred by the State (not to mention that arrangement encourages the hiring of government influence peddlers as CEOs, which, in turn, encourages State/business collusion on things like contracts and taxes, but I'm getting off topic).

All of the previous paragraph is close to inarguable in it's truth, but somewhat fanciful and Quixotic in the notion that this can change.

allowing them to decide whether they remain under the current tax code, or opting for a flat tax code.

Personally, I find an optional 2-tiered flat tax to be a great idea, if the macroeconomic numbers add up.

Well this coming from someone who walks the Halls of Washington...

BUT: I see he has an idea worth debating. What does Hillary or Barack think now? Or will they have to wait until Edwards makes his statement before they can amble to a point?

I want you to think about something for a second. As a CEO myself, do you think by increasing my taxes and lowering my profit (as you suggest doing) that my income will suffer and the other classes will have more money?

I hope not. Because like all of the other greedy and wealthy CEO's out there, when you raise taxes on me, I turn around and raise my prices. And in some cases have to lay off the employees who work for me. So who do you think a tax increase hurts more now, me or the other classes?

Use your head and quit spouting off illogical liberal talking points. True economic growth occurs when CEO's of companies prosper and provide jobs and spend a ton of their money on other people's stuff too.

We'll cut taxes no matter what. Who cares about the deficit? We won't pay it anyway. Your children will...

This is sad... really. The GOP has been taken by radicals who have decided to raid the US Treasury and it's ok...

I like Ron Pauls idea of doing away with the IRS. We didn't need these organizations all throughout our countries history until this past half century. That's very strange. I'm willing to be we don't need them at all.

http://democratequalssocialist.wordpress.com/

Any response to the article and the statistics in it? Any response to the numbers? Any intelligent response as to why it's good or bad?

All i see there is a blunt anti-Thompson post with no response to the point of the article.

I like the concept of a flat tax. The only way I think it will work is to stop or reduce government give me programs. But It's a good concept. I'll have to read up more on the details of it....

How many bills related to tax relief did you introduce when you were in the Senate?

As a lobbyist, did you ever lobby for any worthwhile tax relief?

Why don't you bring all those troops home in foreign countries where there are no wars like Korea and Europe. Close those bases and save tons of money, then we won't need the taxes on the middle class? Answer: because you have to keep the fear of war alive to fund those who contribute to campaigns and the military contractors in business. No way, Fred.

Vote Ron Paul and vote for freedom