A: Well, I think we should have a fair tax. I think that all of this stuff is a big dialog that we need to have. I know that I pay 48% of my income to taxes. You know, I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't going just to export war. If it was actually going to help the people of the United States, I would gladly pay more.
I support and have voted to terminate the current IRS Code at a date determined in the future so it can be replaced with something simpler and fairer. There are several alternatives to the current Code and include the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax, the Transaction Tax, and others. Between the current IRS code and the Fair Tax, I would support the Fair Tax with certain modifications. For example, the Fair Tax, which is basically a national sales tax, has a prebate of $180 per month per person, which should be limited to US citizens. I would support a Fair Tax only if certain other taxes, such as the Death Tax and Income Tax were eliminated. If the Income Tax were to be retained, then I would oppose a national sales tax and have a simple flat rate income tax and scrap the current code.
In honoring these rights we will create the basis for a new economy--an economy that is stable and not vulnerable to speculation--an economy that is prosperous and that pays for itself through the creation of real wealth that is distributed throughout America--an economy that is no longer dragged down by big corporations preying on the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, and the young, but which instead supports small business, individual liberty, and local, thriving communities.
This means that everyone willing and able to work has the right to a job at a living wage. All of us have the right to quality education, health care, housing and utilities. Each of us has the right to unionize, to fair taxation, and to fair trade.
The promise of an Economic Bill of Rights came out of the last period of widespread, extreme economic hardship, the Great Depression. In 1944, FDR said that "true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence." And 20 years later, Martin Luther King raised up the call for an Economic Bill of Rights once again.
PERRY: Seven percent flat tax.
SANTORUM: Two rates, 10 and 28 percent.
ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent.
GINGRICH: I would like to see it be a flat tax at 15 percent and I would like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government.
PAUL: Well, we should have the lowest tax that we've ever had, and up until 1913 it was 0%. What's so bad about that? I think the question is generally misleading, because anytime you spend money, it's a tax. You might tax, you might borrow, you might inflate. The vicious tax, that's attacking the American people, the retired people today, is the inflation tax, the devaluation of the currency, the standard of living is going down, and you need to address that. And that's why I want to make the inflation tax zero, as well.
Q: So your answer is zero?
PAUL: Zero.
PERRY: Seven percent flat tax. Simple. Keep it simple.
SANTORUM: Well, my plan has two rates, 10 and 28 percent, which is the highest rate under Ronald Reagan when he cut taxes.
ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent, but right now it's at 35, so people better pay what is legally required. But ultimately let's get it down to as low as we possibly can, if it's 20, if it's 25 but paying more than 25 percent, I think, is taking too much out of our pockets.
GINGRICH: I would like to see it be a flat tax at 15 percent and I would like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government.
PAUL: Well, we should have the lowest tax that we've ever had, and up until 1913 it was 0%. What's so bad about that?
ROMNEY: Well, I would like to see our tax rates flatter. I'd like to see our code simpler. I'd like to see the special breaks that we have in the code taken out. That's one of the reasons why I take the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%, is to take out some of the special deals. What I want to do is to take our precious dollars & focus them on the people in this country that have been hurt the most, and that's the middle class. The Obama economy has really crushed middle-income Americans. So what I do is focus a substantial tax break on middle-income Americans. Ultimately, I'd love to see us come up with a plan that simplifies the code and lowers rates for everybody. But right now, let's get the job done first that has to be done immediately. Let's lower the tax rates on middle-income Americans.
ROMNEY: My intent is to help the people who have been most hurt by President Obama's economy. And the people who have been most hurt are the middle income families of America. And that's why my plan says that if middle income families want to save their money, anybody earning under $200,000 and not pay any taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains, zero tax on their savings, that's the plan I'm for. And I will get that done in my first year.
JOHNSON: Throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax, the FairTax, which would absolutely reboot the American economy because it does away with the corporate tax to create tens of millions of jobs in this country.
A: My next-door neighbor's dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration. Balance the federal budget now, not 15 years from now, not 20 years from now, but now. And throw out the entire federal tax system, replace it with a FairTax, a consumption tax, that by all measurements is just that. It's fair. It does away with corporate income tax. [That would] create tens of millions of jobs in this country.
ROMNEY: The idea of a national sales tax or a consumption tax has a lot to go for it. One, it would make us more competitive globally, as we send products around the world, because under the provisions of the World Trade Organization, you can reimburse that to an exporter. We can't reimburse our taxes right now. It also would level the playing field in the country, making sure everybody is paying some part of their fair share. But the way the fair tax has been structured it has a real problem and that is it lowers the burden on the very highest income folks and the very lowest and raises it on middle income people. And the people who have been hurt most by the economy are the middle class. And so my plan is for middle income Americans, no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let people save their money as the way they think is best. We're taxing too much, we're spending too much and middle income Americans need a break and I'll give it to them.
A: I would cut Social Security by raising the retirement age and have common sense means testing that's fair. I would scrap the entire federal tax system and replace it with the FairTax--a one-time consumption tax, with no more Medicare and unemployment payroll deductions--so we'd replace all federal taxes, abolishing the IRS.
A: As I proved in NM, government creates jobs by reducing its role, not expanding it. Get government out of the way. Government can create certainty. Something that is completely lacking at the moment. Eliminate the cooperate income tax completely and adopt what is being called the Fair Tax: a one-time federal consumption tax.
The new, simplified tax code eliminates nearly all existing tax deductions and exclusions, but it allows generous standard deductions and personal exemptions. Individuals receive a $12,500 deduction. Personal exemptions allow $3,500 for each family member. Tax return could be done on a post card.
The Road Map plan would not require major changes in the current income tax system now collected by employers. People who don't like the simplified tax alternative could stay with the current tax system. This gives people a choice, and the total tax revenue to the government would be the same. Who could complain about that?
A: Well, I know. That’s why I don’t want it.
Q: So you have nothing?
A: I want to cut spending. I want to use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn’t need the income tax.
Paul told Leno that the abolition of the income tax would leave the federal government with roughly the revenues it was able to gather in 2000, before the overseas adventures of the Bush years.
This seemed too good to be true, and it was. Without the revenues from individual income tax, the federal budget would shrink to the size it was in the early 1990s, not the year 2000. The discretionary share of the federal budget would dwindle to zero. All remaining federal revenues would be earmarked for mandatory entitlement spending such as social security--which Paul has said he would not touch--and interest on debt.
The Paul campaign responds, “Policy wonks can go back and forth arguing over budget specifics. Dr. Paul’s point is that we can eliminate the income tax & fund a level of government from the recent past. Whether that year is 1995, 1997 or 2000 is irrelevant.”
A: It’s good, but it’s not that good. There are a lot of features that are very attractive about a FairTax. Getting rid of the IRS is something we’d all love. But the truth is, we’re going to have to pay taxes. Completely throwing out our tax system and coming up with an entirely new one is something we have to do very, very carefully. The president’s commission on tax reform looked at this and said: Not a good idea. Some of the reasons are the FairTax, for instance, charges a 23% tax, plus state sales tax, on a new home, when you purchase a new home. But if you buy an old home, there’s no tax. Think what that might do to the construction industry. We need to thoroughly take it apart before we make a change of that nature. That’s why my view is, get rid of the tax on savings and let middle-income people save their money tax-free
| ||||||||||||