So can anyone besides trump

[countryroads89_rivals]

I guess everybody hates 10% flat tax and abolishing the IRS? Total repeal of Obamacare? Pull back of the EPA off the backs of businesses? SS reform that allows youngest generation to take control of their own retirement. Repeal every single illegal executive order made by this unconstitutional president? Nobody likey Cruz campaign format? Lower flat corporate tax which I think is 16%. Vows to save the coal industry from unaccountable bureaucrats. Give land back to the western states. Cruz will triple the size of border agents and will make e- verify is properly employed. Folks that have overstayed their visas will be deported. Cruz promises his flat tax plan will energize the economy. The flat tax on corporations will bring back trillions to this country.

Cruz history tells you he means what he says and will do what he promises. What's not to like about those campaign promises.

10% flat tax and abolishing the IRS - idiotic!
Total repeal of Obamacare - idiotic! The Affordable Care Act needs some revisions, let's make it better, not abolish it. I love all the proposals the Republicans have come up with on healthcare.
Pull back of the EPA off the backs of businesses - idiotic. The new clean air emission standard hasn't even went into effect yet, it's still tied up in litigation, but do tell us how it has been killing our economy.
Repeal every single illegal executive order made by this unconstitutional president - you are clearly part of the kook fringe.
Vows to save the coal industry from unaccountable bureaucrats - the main thing killing coal is cheap natural gas, but go ahead and blame Obama.
Give land back to the western states - you sound like a Bundy.
Cruz promises his flat tax plan will energize the economy - he can promise whatever he wants, it doesn't make it true.
The flat tax on corporations will bring back trillions to this country - the flat tax will put us even further in debt - that thing you Republicans love to talk about.
Cruz history tells you he means what he says and will do what he promises - Cruz history tells us he is a dumb *** that loves to shut down the government, against the sound advice his own party tried to give him but he wouldn't listen. He is a stubborn dumb *** with a bunch of bad ideas.

 

[mule_eer]

Cutting taxes significantly, increasing defense, increasing border security and immigration enforcement, and balancing the budget. Those things do not go hand in hand. Cruz may be a good Christian, but he's a bad accountant.

 

[ThatNehlenFeelin]

Cutting taxes significantly, increasing defense, increasing border security and immigration enforcement, and balancing the budget. Those things do not go hand in hand. Cruz may be a good Christian, but he's a bad accountant.

I agree. Plus abolishing the IRS? I know everyone hates taxes but we need an agency to cover 300+ million tax returns.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Cutting taxes significantly, increasing defense, increasing border security and immigration enforcement, and balancing the budget. Those things do not go hand in hand. Cruz may be a good Christian, but he's a bad accountant.

Hard to say he's a good Christian either with as much as he lies.

 

[mneilmont]

Cutting taxes significantly, increasing defense, increasing border security and immigration enforcement, and balancing the budget. Those things do not go hand in hand. Cruz may be a good Christian, but he's a bad accountant.

I would probably be considered a pretty good accountant from education and practice over 35-40 years. Would you please enlighten me wherein those particular items fail to go hand in hand. There needs to be more discussion than just statements that are unsubstantiated. As to Cruz, he is a bit of a hard *** and I need some verification that his unwaivering opinion is any better than the current president. Our form of government is simply not formed in such way that one person has all the answers. Somewhere and sometime we have got to realize we have three co-equal branches. If we are going to by-pass that system, we need to relocate about 530 people(plus staffs) back out of DC. It just costs too much to pay people who serve no useful purpose.

 

[bamaEER]

Cutting taxes significantly, increasing defense, increasing border security and immigration enforcement, and balancing the budget. Those things do not go hand in hand. Cruz may be a good Christian, but he's a bad accountant.

I agree. Plus from his Freedom Coalition perspective, I see little compromise potential there.

 

[mule_eer]

I would probably be considered a pretty good accountant from education and practice over 35-40 years. Would you please enlighten me wherein those particular items fail to go hand in hand. There needs to be more discussion than just statements that are unsubstantiated. As to Cruz, he is a bit of a hard *** and I need some verification that his unwaivering opinion is any better than the current president. Our form of government is simply not formed in such way that one person has all the answers. Somewhere and sometime we have got to realize we have three co-equal branches. If we are going to by-pass that system, we need to relocate about 530 people(plus staffs) back out of DC. It just costs too much to pay people who serve no useful purpose.

Those fail to go hand in hand because a drop to 10% tax rate is a significant drop, so you are collecting less revenue. Increasing border and immigration enforcement costs more than we currently spend on that. Increasing the size of the military requires additional spending. You are spending more and bringing in less. It's simple arithmetic.

Someone else mentioned the closing of the IRS. That's a dumb idea. Someone has to be responsible for collecting taxes, auditing to make sure people aren't short-changing the government. Close the IRS, and you either expand some other agency in order for them to do that or create a new IRS.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Those fail to go hand in hand because a drop to 10% tax rate is a significant drop, so you are collecting less revenue. Increasing border and immigration enforcement costs more than we currently spend on that. Increasing the size of the military requires additional spending. You are spending more and bringing in less. It's simple arithmetic.

Someone else mentioned the closing of the IRS. That's a dumb idea. Someone has to be responsible for collecting taxes, auditing to make sure people aren't short-changing the government. Close the IRS, and you either expand some other agency in order for them to do that or create a new IRS.

Certainly shouldn't take a lot of brainpower to figure that out. We are already operating at a deficit, and cutting revenue and increasing expenses is only going to make it worse. My effective tax rate has hovered around 15%. I don't know what it is for everybody else, but that seems like a decent number if we are going to do a flat tax.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Someone else mentioned the closing of the IRS. That's a dumb idea. Someone has to be responsible for collecting taxes, auditing to make sure people aren't short-changing the government. Close the IRS, and you either expand some other agency in order for them to do that or create a new IRS.

Change the name to IRB, Internal Revenue Bastards, to make people feel better.

 

[bamaEER]

Change the name to IRB, Internal Revenue Bastards, to make people feel better.

Or how about IRSIS...you know because of Sharia Law.

 

[mneilmont]

Those fail to go hand in hand because a drop to 10% tax rate is a significant drop, so you are collecting less revenue. Increasing border and immigration enforcement costs more than we currently spend on that. Increasing the size of the military requires additional spending. You are spending more and bringing in less. It's simple arithmetic.

Someone else mentioned the closing of the IRS. That's a dumb idea. Someone has to be responsible for collecting taxes, auditing to make sure people aren't short-changing the government. Close the IRS, and you either expand some other agency in order for them to do that or create a new IRS.

Step by step:
1. The 10% tax rate is a flat rate on all income. I don't think you can make that % comparison when it is applied to our current graduated or incremental system on adjusted income. Apples and oranges - but I have seen studies that would require 17% flat to get the current total tax. That gives no weight to economic stimulus from the structure change. So, the simple math would be undetermined.

2. Increased military spending at first glance appears to be more expensive, but does it take into consideration the impact of wiser spending and economic impact? I cannot substantiate this one either, but I have heard of the vast economics available in wiser spending in military. I tend to believe there are great amounts available in military budgeting. Start budget at zero and substantiate need. There are savings in operating and capital budget and am near 100% in that belief.

3. Border and Immigration could improve dramatically simply by being serious about enforcement.

4. Filing taxes on postcard or single sheet from flat tax would allow you to cut the total cost of IRS by a minimum of 90% over 3 years. You would need scanners for data entry and some better programing and this may create the new( and improved) IRS you refer to.

5. There are several agencies that could be abandoned also.

The main place we would differ is that you believe spending more will make a better product. As an accountant, I have to see the cost-benefit on all the programs. Can we justify the spending to attain the end product, and is the end product needed to start with?

 

[mneilmont]

Or how about IRSIS...you know because of Sharia Law.

You know, you are cute from time to time. Spoke to a lady in Garden City outside Detroit and she says they don't even feel safe driving to church any more the Muslim population has gotten so overpowering. Her church is a couple hundred years old and has some old money in it that keeps it viable. Had 1000s in membership when she first became associated in the '60s and now about 40 attend on normal Sunday. Cannot afford to pay heating bill without older members subsidizing. As older members die off, the remaining members will just have to walk away. When Muslims started to take over the entire area, her church was egged by two juveniles. They were subsequently caught and penalty to remove eggs. No further problems at this time.

All women dress in their garb. Friend said a policeman told story of wreck in circle and the officer issued citation to Muslim for failing to yield right of way. He kept yelling "no, no, no - not my fault. She is a woman" Officer told him he would follow US law while in this country. Man grumbled "she a woman, she supposed to wait for man".

Also said that their women actually do walk 2-3 paces behind when they are walking the streets of the city. Yes, it is Sharia Law and it is practiced right here in River City. May be coming to NY sooner than you think, and that will be hilarious, huh?

 

[dave]

10% flat tax and abolishing the IRS - idiotic!
Total repeal of Obamacare - idiotic! The Affordable Care Act needs some revisions, let's make it better, not abolish it. I love all the proposals the Republicans have come up with on healthcare.
Pull back of the EPA off the backs of businesses - idiotic. The new clean air emission standard hasn't even went into effect yet, it's still tied up in litigation, but do tell us how it has been killing our economy.
Repeal every single illegal executive order made by this unconstitutional president - you are clearly part of the kook fringe.
Vows to save the coal industry from unaccountable bureaucrats - the main thing killing coal is cheap natural gas, but go ahead and blame Obama.
Give land back to the western states - you sound like a Bundy.
Cruz promises his flat tax plan will energize the economy - he can promise whatever he wants, it doesn't make it true.
The flat tax on corporations will bring back trillions to this country - the flat tax will put us even further in debt - that thing you Republicans love to talk about.
Cruz history tells you he means what he says and will do what he promises - Cruz history tells us he is a dumb *** that loves to shut down the government, against the sound advice his own party tried to give him but he wouldn't listen. He is a stubborn dumb *** with a bunch of bad ideas.

Do you use Brawndo because it has electrolytes?

 

[mule_eer]

Step by step:
1. The 10% tax rate is a flat rate on all income. I don't think you can make that % comparison when it is applied to our current graduated or incremental system on adjusted income. Apples and oranges - but I have seen studies that would require 17% flat to get the current total tax. That gives no weight to economic stimulus from the structure change. So, the simple math would be undetermined.

I'll have to look as to whether it is as a percentage of my adjusted income or my income, but I've historically paid somewhere around the 15-18% range. I do itemize deductions, but I don't have a ton of deductions - some charity, some mortgage interest, state tax, etc. Taking those deductions out will impact the economy in some ways. If I'm an individual who can rent for about the same price as it would cost me to buy, do I buy if I can't deduct the interest I pay on my mortgage? If I'm a business and I can't write off depreciation of equipment or write off some of my business costs, do I spend the same amount of money on new equipment and the like? That has a potential ripple effect as well.

2. Increased military spending at first glance appears to be more expensive, but does it take into consideration the impact of wiser spending and economic impact? I cannot substantiate this one either, but I have heard of the vast economics available in wiser spending in military. I tend to believe there are great amounts available in military budgeting. Start budget at zero and substantiate need. There are savings in operating and capital budget and am near 100% in that belief.

One of the points is to keep the number of boots relatively high. You have to pay those people, plus you either provide housing or pay them extra to subsidize housing. You insure those people and their families. That's before you train them, provide them with resources with which to work, etc. I'm not complaining about having to do that, but all of that costs money.

3. Border and Immigration could improve dramatically simply by being serious about enforcement.

You need people in order to enforce. You can hire more people or pay more overtime to those you have. Either way, you are looking at more money, and you have the same expenses as you do with the military that I listed above.

4. Filing taxes on postcard or single sheet from flat tax would allow you to cut the total cost of IRS by a minimum of 90% over 3 years. You would need scanners for data entry and some better programing and this may create the new( and improved) IRS you refer to.

And how does that impact the accounting profession. If Coop has to sleep on his mom's couch, he's really going to cramp her style. I'm not saying that we need to keep the tax code onerous to keep people employed, but that's a "cost" associated with a radical change in the tax code. That will drop income for a lot of people - maybe drive some businesses like H&R Block out of business. That all has a cost associated with it, and some of that cost is a reduction in the amount of money the government has coming in from taxes.

5. There are several agencies that could be abandoned also..

That's most likely true. I think a lot of people say that about a lot of agencies without knowing what those agencies do though. It's worth studying where we can cut, but we need to be smart about the cuts and look at the total cost, not just the size of the reduction in spending.

The main place we would differ is that you believe spending more will make a better product. As an accountant, I have to see the cost-benefit on all the programs. Can we justify the spending to attain the end product, and is the end product needed to start with?

I disagree as to where we differ. My point was that Cruz is claiming that he can significantly reduce taxes and do all of these other things. I don't believe he can do that without adding a significant amount to our overall debt. He's also not looking at the long game - the effects the changes would have on the overall economy. He may be looking one step ahead with rose-colored glasses, but he's not looking far enough down the line. We should change the tax code. We should look at making better decisions about how we spend our tax dollars. All of that is true, but we need to look at the whole picture, and how those changes impact the overall economy, not just the little pieces that are immediately impacted.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Certainly shouldn't take a lot of brainpower to figure that out. We are already operating at a deficit, and cutting revenue and increasing expenses is only going to make it worse. My effective tax rate has hovered around 15%. I don't know what it is for everybody else, but that seems like a decent number if we are going to do a flat tax.

Ooooof, higher tax brackets suck balls. Household effective tax was around 20% and we took major reductions. Still paid out 6 figures

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Ooooof, higher tax brackets suck balls. Household effective tax was around 20% and we took major reductions. Still paid out 6 figures

I'll trade ya.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Ooooof, higher tax brackets suck balls. Household effective tax was around 20% and we took major reductions. Still paid out 6 figures

Congratulations on your success. (no snarkiness should be inferred) Of course I haven't done any kind of in-depth analysis, but I have a 6 figure salary and my effective tax rate is always around 15% so that really seems fair to me. As far as business taxes are concerned, I don't know what kind of effective tax rate they end up paying, but to make things attractive maybe 5% would work as long as loop holes are closed and money can't be hidden overseas.

Maybe I am way off and it's just not financially feasible, but my gut tells me that it's probably not too far off. However, one thing that concerns me about flat taxes is the impact it may have on philanthropy.

What are you doing in 4 years? Let's make a run.

 

[mneilmont]

I'll have to look as to whether it is as a percentage of my adjusted income or my income, but I've historically paid somewhere around the 15-18% range. I do itemize deductions, but I don't have a ton of deductions - some charity, some mortgage interest, state tax, etc. Taking those deductions out will impact the economy in some ways. If I'm an individual who can rent for about the same price as it would cost me to buy, do I buy if I can't deduct the interest I pay on my mortgage? If I'm a business and I can't write off depreciation of equipment or write off some of my business costs, do I spend the same amount of money on new equipment and the like? That has a potential ripple effect as well.


One of the points is to keep the number of boots relatively high. You have to pay those people, plus you either provide housing or pay them extra to subsidize housing. You insure those people and their families. That's before you train them, provide them with resources with which to work, etc. I'm not complaining about having to do that, but all of that costs money.


You need people in order to enforce. You can hire more people or pay more overtime to those you have. Either way, you are looking at more money, and you have the same expenses as you do with the military that I listed above.


And how does that impact the accounting profession. If Coop has to sleep on his mom's couch, he's really going to cramp her style. I'm not saying that we need to keep the tax code onerous to keep people employed, but that's a "cost" associated with a radical change in the tax code. That will drop income for a lot of people - maybe drive some businesses like H&R Block out of business. That all has a cost associated with it, and some of that cost is a reduction in the amount of money the government has coming in from taxes.


That's most likely true. I think a lot of people say that about a lot of agencies without knowing what those agencies do though. It's worth studying where we can cut, but we need to be smart about the cuts and look at the total cost, not just the size of the reduction in spending.


I disagree as to where we differ. My point was that Cruz is claiming that he can significantly reduce taxes and do all of these other things. I don't believe he can do that without adding a significant amount to our overall debt. He's also not looking at the long game - the effects the changes would have on the overall economy. He may be looking one step ahead with rose-colored glasses, but he's not looking far enough down the line. We should change the tax code. We should look at making better decisions about how we spend our tax dollars. All of that is true, but we need to look at the whole picture, and how those changes impact the overall economy, not just the little pieces that are immediately impacted.

I will get back after a bit. But in essence, the only way you see for us to go forward is to have a bigger government. From my point, the government is too big right now. Later.

 

[mule_eer]

I will get back after a bit. But in essence, the only way you see for us to go forward is to have a bigger government. From my point, the government is too big right now. Later.

I don't think you are reading what I wrote. I think you are assigning me a position because I am questioning the viability of Cruz's plan. Nothing in my comments suggest that I want bigger government. My whole point is that you can't go cutting entire agencies or programs or radically changing the tax code without looking at all of the possible implications. That's not smart.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I don't think you are reading what I wrote. I think you are assigning me a position because I am questioning the viability of Cruz's plan. Nothing in my comments suggest that I want bigger government. My whole point is that you can't go cutting entire agencies or programs or radically changing the tax code without looking at all of the possible implications. That's not smart.

It's nice to see that he is doing that to other people as well (and not me anymore). Prepare to argue that point indefinitely. I've told him at least a dozen times that he is attributing a position to me that I'm not taking and every attempt to clarify just took me further down the rabbit hole, sometimes different rabbit holes, none of which had anything to do with what I had ever actually said.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I don't think you are reading what I wrote. I think you are assigning me a position because I am questioning the viability of Cruz's plan. Nothing in my comments suggest that I want bigger government. My whole point is that you can't go cutting entire agencies or programs or radically changing the tax code without looking at all of the possible implications. That's not smart.

Tip of the cap to you, my esteemed colleague, for your patience.

 

[mule_eer]

It's nice to see that he is doing that to other people as well (and not me anymore). Prepare to argue that point indefinitely. I've told him at least a dozen times that he is attributing a position to me that I'm not taking and every attempt to clarify just took me further down the rabbit hole, sometimes different rabbit holes, none of which had anything to do with what I had ever actually said.

Oh, I've been there before. He obviously spent a fair amount of time on his response to my post, and I felt obliged to address his points. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was currently pressed for time and only skimmed my response. It happens. I've done it before myself. Maybe I'm being naive, but I've had generally respectful exchanges with the guy. Neil has a temper, as do most of us, and he has shown himself to be stubborn about many things, also a trait that I have with regards to some subjects. I like to try to have real discussions about these sorts of things though, and I think the amount of thought he put into the first response made the conversation one worth continuing.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Oh, I've been there before. He obviously spent a fair amount of time on his response to my post, and I felt obliged to address his points. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was currently pressed for time and only skimmed my response. It happens. I've done it before myself. Maybe I'm being naive, but I've had generally respectful exchanges with the guy. Neil has a temper, as do most of us, and he has shown himself to be stubborn about many things, also a trait that I have with regards to some subjects. I like to try to have real discussions about these sorts of things though, and I think the amount of thought he put into the first response made the conversation one worth continuing.

I honestly tried for the longest time to have respectful conversations with him, but everything became a constant barrage of him saying that I said things or meant things that I never said or meant. It always ended up with multiple insults along the way. I brushed them off for a long time, until I couldn't take it anymore and blew up at him. Then I apologized for the blow up, tried having civil discussions and then the cycle started repeating itself until I blew up again. Now my default position with him is predominantly hostility, which isn't my way with anybody else and isn't my way in general at anytime, so I mostly just try to avoid it.

His latest response is VERY familiar. There is no way anything you wrote could possibly be interpreted as advocating bigger government ... I've written I-don't-know-how-many posts that couldn't have possibly been interpreted the way he did and he wouldn't stop arguing it. Best of luck with it. Speaking from experience, if the next thing is something trying to convince you that you actually did say that, then just step out of the conversation because there will be no end.

 

[mneilmont]

I honestly tried for the longest time to have respectful conversations with him, but everything became a constant barrage of him saying that I said things or meant things that I never said or meant. It always ended up with multiple insults along the way. I brushed them off for a long time, until I couldn't take it anymore and blew up at him. Then I apologized for the blow up, tried having civil discussions and then the cycle started repeating itself until I blew up again. Now my default position with him is predominantly hostility, which isn't my way with anybody else and isn't my way in general at anytime, so I mostly just try to avoid it.

His latest response is VERY familiar. There is no way anything you wrote could possibly be interpreted as advocating bigger government ... I've written I-don't-know-how-many posts that couldn't have possibly been interpreted the way he did and he wouldn't stop arguing it. Best of luck with it. Speaking from experience, if the next thing is something trying to convince you that you actually did say that, then just step out of the conversation because there will be no end.

Oh, I've been there before. He obviously spent a fair amount of time on his response to my post, and I felt obliged to address his points. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was currently pressed for time and only skimmed my response. It happens. I've done it before myself. Maybe I'm being naive, but I've had generally respectful exchanges with the guy. Neil has a temper, as do most of us, and he has shown himself to be stubborn about many things, also a trait that I have with regards to some subjects. I like to try to have real discussions about these sorts of things though, and I think the amount of thought he put into the first response made the conversation one worth continuing.

Oh, I've been there before. He obviously spent a fair amount of time on his response to my post, and I felt obliged to address his points. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was currently pressed for time and only skimmed my response. It happens. I've done it before myself. Maybe I'm being naive, but I've had generally respectful exchanges with the guy. Neil has a temper, as do most of us, and he has shown himself to be stubborn about many things, also a trait that I have with regards to some subjects. I like to try to have real discussions about these sorts of things though, and I think the amount of thought he put into the first response made the conversation one worth continuing.

Oh, I've been there before. He obviously spent a fair amount of time on his response to my post, and I felt obliged to address his points. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was currently pressed for time and only skimmed my response. It happens. I've done it before myself. Maybe I'm being naive, but I've had generally respectful exchanges with the guy. Neil has a temper, as do most of us, and he has shown himself to be stubborn about many things, also a trait that I have with regards to some subjects. I like to try to have real discussions about these sorts of things though, and I think the amount of thought he put into the first response made the conversation one worth continuing.

Mule thanks for having character enough to not address with some derogatory term. The two who are offering to protect you from me have to start with a personal attack and I see one response on this thread "idiotic" is not used as a term of endearment.

Granted, we have obviously looked at elements of this discussion differently. I didn't know I was supporting Cruz tax plan, but after looking at an exchange he had with Megan, I do support it in principle, but hav not attempted to verify the figures. The Corp tax rate has not been looked at by me, but the personal rate is damned near a rate that I have been expounding for years. Flat rate was something I agreed with Steve Forbes years back. So, I have no problem with the basis of Cruz plan. The 36G exclusion is near where I was, but I offered no deductions of income. Someone was even offering to bid the exclusion up to 50G, which I think is excessive.

Cruz says the stimulative effect of corp and personal tax along with economic growth will generate sufficient tax revenue. That brings us back to a difference I perceived with you. That is expenditures. Growth of military will possibly cost more, but that is a constitutional requirement. Make cuts where possible. Then there is border protection. You want more manned patrol. I want barrier obstruction with necessary manned patrol. There has to be attitude adjustment here to enforce law. That will be less costly going forward.

Balanced budget. IMO, spending has got to be major element. I cannot see any way we can grow our way out of the problems we have now until the government shows willingness to lead way by curbing spending. Parograms and agencies have to be assessed. Do they promote a constitutional requirement? And, we have to respect the three pronged system of government that was intended.

You disagree with Cruz that some things are compatible. I say they have to be compatible to grow our country back to what she was. And we can leave here better than we found her.
Enjoy the discussion, but not as much as eating. Moving forward

 

[WVUCOOPER]

And how does that impact the accounting profession. If Coop has to sleep on his mom's couch, he's really going to cramp her style. I'm not saying that we need to keep the tax code onerous to keep people employed, but that's a "cost" associated with a radical change in the tax code. That will drop income for a lot of people - maybe drive some businesses like H&R Block out of business. That all has a cost associated with it, and some of that cost is a reduction in the amount of money the government has coming in from taxes.

Thanks for the support mule!!