Comments on: Huntsman tax plan goes big and bold

By: texasfilly

texasfilly — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:42:47 +0000

Where would the elderly fit in to this tax plan of 8%, 14% and 23%? Thank you.

By: joeThousandaire

joeThousandaire — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:34:27 +0000

Its more important to reduce the deficit that it is to eliminate investment taxes. Other than that its a fine plan as is Bowles-Simpson. Also, Mr. Huntsman – global warming is fake!

By: TC-PA

TC-PA — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:31:33 +0000

Great start, with a few adjustments:

Contributions to 501-c3′s should remain tax deductible. They take the load off the government to provide services.

Maintain taxes on dividends and capital gains – in fact, remove the 15% flat rate and make them taxable at whatever the rest of the individual or corporation’s tax rate is. People don’t need special incentives to invest – this has always been a rich-man’s subsidy.

Provide a baseline tax exemption based on household size so a person/household can keep at least enough to pay for rent, food, and basic transportation. People should pay their fair share, but we don’t want to literally tax someone to death. No pay-back credits though – it’s an exemption only.

And finally – stipulate that NO future government incentives ever be implemented via the tax code again. If the government wants to subsidize corn ethanol, solar energy, or a new electronics industry specialty, they have to do it through directly trackable subsidies, not the tax system.

By: seanumich

seanumich — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:03:36 +0000

Total stupidity. If lower capital gains taxes created a SINGLE job, why not tell us how many the 15% created over rates BEFORE Bush and how many jobs they created. By the way, revisionist history on Reagan. He RAISED taxes, In fact, lets go back to the rates of his day.

By: Cars4Charities

Cars4Charities — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:38:15 +0000

They are also talking about not allowing the tax deduction for charitable contributions. Now is the time to donate money, items or car to charity. http://www.cars4charities.org/

By: radicall77

radicall77 — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:43:05 +0000

@mitchellvii : Great idea!

Let’s draw a pound of flesh from the Americans who make less than 20,000 an year because the millionaires and billionaires aren’t making enough.

Consumption Taxes again affect the same demographic disproportionately.

Are we trying to punish the poor to make them poorer? The people who spend are the ones who create wealth for the producers. If you squash the spender – you will kill wealth creation. Unless your target markets are outside the US.

By: HENRYC

HENRYC — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:48:39 +0000

It is a pretty good plan, he should suggest it to someone that has a ghost of a chance of winning the nomination.

By: zotdoc

zotdoc — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:24:50 +0000

What Mr. Huntsman has proposed makes sense, but I wish he would go further and eliminate all tax brackets, just have one low bracket for everyone. Politicians would be forced to sell their ideas to every voter who would be likely oppose spending if it would raise everyones taxes. “Class warfare” that the politicians love so much would be ended, and we would all have equal protection from taxation which would be much fairer than our current system. @mitchellvii – your idea is an even better one!

By: mitchellvii

mitchellvii — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:40:01 +0000

Taxing income at all is illogical. You are taxing the act of creation. The best idea is a consumption tax which would cause everyone to have “skin in the game” as opposed to the 50% of Americans who pay no income tax at all.

A consumption tax is the only truly fair progressive tax since the more people consume, the more they pay. If one looks at taxes as the “rent” we pay to live in a free and fair society, this is the only model which makes sense.

Of course pushing such a tax through would be tough sledding as those 50% who pay no taxes currently would oppose it.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” – Alexander Tytler

By: radicall77

radicall77 — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:07:21 +0000

If this is Revenue neutral – it is increasing taxes on someone while decreasing taxes for someone else.

It would also be interesting to see an analysis of who is impacted by this and how much.