Carson's Tax Plan

[Guest]

Carson seemed to waffle at first when asked about a 10 percent flat tax he proposed as a type of tithing. He changed the figure to 15 percent after some stammering.

Carson said a 15 percent tax on everyone would work because he would eliminate all deductions.

This would have a very bad effect on the housing industry as homeowners count on the mortgage interest deductions. He would also eliminate exemptions for health insurance and retirement savings.

This info can be found on page A6 of today's Daily Sun.

Carson may be very likable but certainly is not Presidential material.

I hope Fiorina was being cutesy when she said she would pare down the tax codes from 70,000 pages down to 3 pages. Agree that 70,000 is ridiculous but 3 pages? Not even realistic.

Winner last night? Christy.

[Guest]

Carson seemed to waffle at first when asked about a 10 percent flat tax he proposed as a type of tithing. He changed the figure to 15 percent after some stammering.

Carson said a 15 percent tax on everyone would work because he would eliminate all deductions.

This would have a very bad effect on the housing industry as homeowners count on the mortgage interest deductions. He would also eliminate exemptions for health insurance and retirement savings.

This info can be found on page A6 of today's Daily Sun.

Carson may be very likable but certainly is not Presidential material.

I hope Fiorina was being cutesy when she said she would pare down the tax codes from 70,000 pages down to 3 pages. Agree that 70,000 is ridiculous but 3 pages? Not even realistic.

Winner last night? Christy.

Obama won and he was an unknown entity!

Maybe Fiorina is off by stating 3 pages. Make it 6. The 69,000 + pages are most legalese...

When I was in business I use to advise folks they could use as many pages as they wanted to present something for my approval, BUT there had to be a one page cover sheet that would determine if I even turn the page!

She has the right idea.

[Guest]

Obama won and he was an unknown entity!

Maybe Fiorina is off by stating 3 pages. Make it 6. The 69,000 + pages are most legalese...

When I was in business I use to advise folks they could use as many pages as they wanted to present something for my approval, BUT there had to be a one page cover sheet that would determine if I even turn the page!

She has the right idea.

The Democratic internal's make Rubio the most "feared".

After a few debates and reading, I have to concur.

[Guest]

Carson could never hadle a debate with Hillary.
Trump or Christy only have the moxie to cut Hillary down to size.
She is a lier and can't be trusted.

[Guest]

Carson could never hadle a debate with Hillary.
Trump or Christy only have the moxie to cut Hillary down to size.
She is a lier and can't be trusted.

Just keep in mind, debating Ms Clinton is only the beginnings. IF you beat her, and my wish is so fervent in that regard, then you will be President of the United States.

THAT is the main thing.

I find Ms Clinton to be perhaps the most appalling and dreadful candidate for President in my life. Disagreeing with issues is one thing, having a President who has made a career of backroom deals and horrid crimes of distorting truth is simply terrifying.

BUT...she is a good debater and my point is, she needs to go away, but the country is more important.

Whomever is pitted against her must win and then must take this country in a new direction, thus as you look at these candidates, remember they must manage our country should they win.

Republicans have to beat not only Ms Clinton, but overcome the media, and last night was a great thing for me. We need the Republicans to become much more offensive...much more aggressive...and begin to call out people publicly.

I am hoping that with Ryan now the speaker, the party will do just that.

I thing I posted the link to the game plan used by Obama to defeat her and it was to attack her character and I am hoping that the Republicans do it with great vigor...honestly but with no sympathy.

[Guest]

Do we really want a President who will cut taxes but at the expense of taking away all deductions? Remember Carson's tax rate would be the same for a CEO as for a file clerk. Yes, the tax lawyers will still find some method of having the CEO pay less tax than a mid-manager - perhaps in offshore accounts.

Carson has absolutely zero chance of besting Hillary in a head to head debate. She would make mincemeat out of him and his stammering that makes him look incompetent.

No one wants Christy as President. No one wants Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Santorum. Rubio has the best shot. Trump will run as a third party.

Hillary wins. End of arguements.:a040:

[Guest]

Do we really want a President who will cut taxes but at the expense of taking away all deductions? Remember Carson's tax rate would be the same for a CEO as for a file clerk. Yes, the tax lawyers will still find some method of having the CEO pay less tax than a mid-manager - perhaps in offshore accounts.

Carson has absolutely zero chance of besting Hillary in a head to head debate. She would make mincemeat out of him and his stammering that makes him look incompetent.

No one wants Christy as President. No one wants Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Santorum. Rubio has the best shot. Trump will run as a third party.

Hillary wins. End of arguements.:a040:

Message to the Sand Trap......I am gone.....you guys win I suppose but I do not have any cute little thingie to add.

Your posts and antics are so easily identifiable

Take care

[Guest]

Do we really want a President who will cut taxes but at the expense of taking away all deductions? Remember Carson's tax rate would be the same for a CEO as for a file clerk. Yes, the tax lawyers will still find some method of having the CEO pay less tax than a mid-manager - perhaps in offshore accounts.

Carson has absolutely zero chance of besting Hillary in a head to head debate. She would make mincemeat out of him and his stammering that makes him look incompetent.

No one wants Christy as President. No one wants Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Santorum. Rubio has the best shot. Trump will run as a third party.

Hillary wins. End of arguements.:a040:

Lacing the X-X-X kool aide with a little PCP again?

[Guest]

In my view

Carson has many fine qualities but he is not good at public speaking.
Rubio is excellent and he conveys his words convey his emotion which allows an audience to test his sincerety.
The same with Cruz but Cruz gets too evangeical
Fiorina is detailed and intellectual but she appears too rehearsed
Bush is simply awful in the arena too clumsy too uncomfortable
Christie is the ultimate show horse
Paul succinct in response but leaves one flat
Kaisch comes across as manically
Trump is Trump bombastic confident but his just trust me attitude does not instill trust with voters
Huckabee is an excellent communicator

But remember we must remind ourselves that we are not choosing the best show horse but the best work horse (qualified to lead).

Carson's people developed a tax plan that he has a difficult time explaining and that concerns me.

Fiorina's is a former CEO and experience has taught her to ask for more in order to get what she will need. Despite what critics say she is spot on with a tax code that even challenge the best of accountants. Its shear madness and its a waste of time, money paper, digital space. Its also very deceptive

Rubio in my view was the clear winner. Its also clear that the mainstream media think so and hence the Democrats also think so. He is the candidate to beat and the opposition knows that and so the mud feast begins. the mainstream media will do everything and anything they can to stop Marco Rubio. To suggest he has to wait his term as the Republican Establishment has done and the mainstream media latched onto is illogical on its face. If you have a gifted child would you allow education wonks to tell you that the child could not moe ahead but had to wait his/her turn. I doubt it.

As to this nonsense of his missing votes McCain, Kerry and Obama all missed a greater percentage than did Rubio. Further and most important of all most people recognize that if Rubio meets the criteria based on nomination and elections that he is of more value to us in the White House then in the Senate. Jeb Bush's half- hearted attempt to take a swipe at Rubio over this issue clearly demonsrates the concern many people have that Rubio is going to be the nominee and Rubio can make mice meat of Hillary any time any where.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Please forgive my editing and keystroke mistakes. However we all have the same limitation because this forum does ot allow us the opportunity of editing our final draft before submitting.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

The candidate's tax plans do not matter. Congress has to approve the plan, unless you are Obama. Any plan the new president will have, will be torn apart and inspected in detail. The fact that they(candidates) have a plan is good enough for me. The most important detail in our future will be to put our budget on a diet, balance it at the very least, and at best have a surplus that could be used to pay down on the National Debt.

Step one is to tear apart Obamacare so that it doesn't cost so much. Repealing it would be my ideal but the probability is slight.
Step two is to figure out a way to build a Social Security surplus to sustain if for the future and have some left for a rainy day situation. That may mean making some drastic changes to age qualification. There are many folks that receive SS that never invested in it(spouses, survivors, etc). We need to figure out a way to fix that. It wasn't meant to be a primary retirement pension. If it is to be, then we need to build it up. Not something I wish to see, because that is leaning toward socialism. I am a capitalist.
Entitlements are a big chunk of our budget. We need to separate entitlements from gov business and then we can trim down the gov to workable levels.

You can't raise taxes every time congress decides to buy some votes with new entitlements. Taxes should be a set percentage and gov expenditures should be dependent on the level of the economy. Better economy, more tax revenues. That would force the gov to play nicely with business. This country is run backwards, similar to socialist countries. The gov dictates to business. For a thriving and profitable country, it should be business dictates the size of the government. Sounds skewed but that is how you have a healthy lifestyle. Lifestyle is controlled by the economy, not the gov. The gov never improves lifestyle, only the economy. And the economy dictates the size of the gov budget. And the economy dictates the quality of your lifestyle, NOT the government.

[Guest]

I also meant to add that when we go war, we should fund it with a war tax, or war bonds.

[Guest]

The candidate's tax plans do not matter. Congress has to approve the plan, unless you are Obama. Any plan the new president will have, will be torn apart and inspected in detail. The fact that they(candidates) have a plan is good enough for me. The most important detail in our future will be to put our budget on a diet, balance it at the very least, and at best have a surplus that could be used to pay down on the National Debt.

Step one is to tear apart Obamacare so that it doesn't cost so much. Repealing it would be my ideal but the probability is slight.
Step two is to figure out a way to build a Social Security surplus to sustain if for the future and have some left for a rainy day situation. That may mean making some drastic changes to age qualification. There are many folks that receive SS that never invested in it(spouses, survivors, etc). We need to figure out a way to fix that. It wasn't meant to be a primary retirement pension. If it is to be, then we need to build it up. Not something I wish to see, because that is leaning toward socialism. I am a capitalist.
Entitlements are a big chunk of our budget. We need to separate entitlements from gov business and then we can trim down the gov to workable levels.

You can't raise taxes every time congress decides to buy some votes with new entitlements. Taxes should be a set percentage and gov expenditures should be dependent on the level of the economy. Better economy, more tax revenues. That would force the gov to play nicely with business. This country is run backwards, similar to socialist countries. The gov dictates to business. For a thriving and profitable country, it should be business dictates the size of the government. Sounds skewed but that is how you have a healthy lifestyle. Lifestyle is controlled by the economy, not the gov. The gov never improves lifestyle, only the economy. And the economy dictates the size of the gov budget. And the economy dictates the quality of your lifestyle, NOT the government.

Well written post.
Your part regarding Social Security is interesting. Most of Social Security recepients are not retirees. They are people in need due to disability or for children. These people have never contributed to the system. To prop up the Social Security, you would need means testing for retirees. Retirees should only receive SS retirement benefits if they are in need. Yes, everyone would still pay into SS but only those in need get to withdraw when they retire.

The war tax concept is interesting.

[Guest]

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security)

[Guest]

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security)

Proof that some pay so that others play. Kind of extreme statement, but true. Many receive benefits from SS that never contributed. That's socialism, because we were not given a choice.

Am I heartless because I complain? I am complaining because liberals rant about how great SS is, but the truth is that it is another program of handouts for many folks that did not contribute, or did not contribute long enough to receive full benefits.

Many also don't tell you that you can get early SS when you are 62 years old, no matter how they moved the retirement (full benefit) age up to 66 or 67 years old. Anyone that is smart and wants to retire early, can start receiving benefits at 62 years old.

[Guest]

I cannot understand why anyone is in favor of a candidate like Ben Carson when he wants to revise the tax system to eliminate all deductions.

Of course, this same thing was proposed by Herman Cain, who also was a non-government candidate and a front-runner for a long time. His popularity went down as quickly as it rose.

Ben is interesting on paper but dull in person. He does not have any excitement in his talking and candidates have to have excitement plus good ideas in order to make it to the nominee stage.

Jeb is down and out. Trump still looks like the candidate to beat.

[Guest]

I cannot understand why anyone is in favor of a candidate like Ben Carson when he wants to revise the tax system to eliminate all deductions.

Of course, this same thing was proposed by Herman Cain, who also was a non-government candidate and a front-runner for a long time. His popularity went down as quickly as it rose.

Ben is interesting on paper but dull in person. He does not have any excitement in his talking and candidates have to have excitement plus good ideas in order to make it to the nominee stage.

Jeb is down and out. Trump still looks like the candidate to beat.

Only liberals need a celebrity president. We need a leader, not an entertainer. Look the present Entertainer-in-chief. All he is good for is a few laughs on SNL. He is the most inept president we've had, including Jimmy "the peanut" Carter. Lets confine celebrities to Hollywood, and replace the current entertainers in D.C. with some decent representatives of the constitution and the American people. Not just the minorities, but ALL the people. I would rather that they sit on their butts and do nothing than having them run amok passing bills, just to pass bills. I'll take a dull bookkeeper, librarian, banker, or doctor over an entertainer any day of the week. I don't what him to be seeking laughs when he gives speeches. I want him to inform, not give advice. I want status reports not divisive attacks on those that don't agree with him. And I want a moratorium on the president's golf for the duration of his term.

[Guest]

It is not an issue until that candidate with that tax plan becomes president and then presents a final draft that will be submitted for review by the various federal auditing agencies . What voters can glean by plans being presented now is a sense of a candidate's thinking on the subject. Beside which most politicians have an insecurity about reduction in tax flow hence taxes always seem to end up going up when they promised they would be gong down

A candidates tax plan is the last thing I use in making my voting decision

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

It is not an issue until that candidate with that tax plan becomes president and then presents a final draft that will be submitted for review by the various federal auditing agencies . What voters can glean by plans being presented now is a sense of a candidate's thinking on the subject. Beside which most politicians have an insecurity about reduction in tax flow hence taxes always seem to end up going up when they promised they would be gong down

A candidates tax plan is the last thing I use in making my voting decision

Personal Best Regards:

:agree:

[Guest]

I also meant to add that when we go war, we should fund it with a war tax, or war bonds.

What a stupid statement. I guess it would be pay as you go. Oh, we don't have enough money to buy bullets, we will have to fight hand to hand. Typical conservative rubbish.

[Guest]

What a stupid statement. I guess it would be pay as you go. Oh, we don't have enough money to buy bullets, we will have to fight hand to hand. Typical conservative rubbish.

I guess you don't know much of U.S. history. Before making such a ludicrous remark, why not do some research so you don't sound so idiotic?

War bonds were used in WWI and WWII.

Forbes:
"Even during wars closer in magnitude to those in which we are presently engaged, significant sacrifices were made. In 1950 and 1951 Congress increased taxes by close to 4% of GDP to pay for the Korean War, even though the high World War II tax rates were still largely in effect. In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP. And there was conscription during both wars, which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle class–young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments."

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1138868]I guess you don't know much of U.S. history. Before making such a ludicrous remark, why not do some research so you don't sound so idiotic?


---

Why would you feel compelled to make a statement like that? Wouldn't a simple correcting of facts work just as well? If you were discussing this at the dinner table with friends and they made a mistake because they did not know about a surtax during Korea or Vietnam, I hope you would not chastise them with "you sound so idiotic".

BTW, I was not the poster but just believe face to face comments work best.

Thank you.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1138868]I guess you don't know much of U.S. history. Before making such a ludicrous remark, why not do some research so you don't sound so idiotic?


---

Why would you feel compelled to make a statement like that? Wouldn't a simple correcting of facts work just as well? If you were discussing this at the dinner table with friends and they made a mistake because they did not know about a surtax during Korea or Vietnam, I hope you would not chastise them with "you sound so idiotic".

BTW, I was not the poster but just believe face to face comments work best.

Thank you.

You are right. I should not have replied in kind. Just because he was derisive in his reply, I should have been the better person. The more P.C. person with a P.C. reply.

I would have replied the same way face to face, if someone was dumb enough to call me "stupid" in person. Although, I doubt he would have that much courage, face to face.

[Guest]

I can tell you some taxes that need to be cut. Death taxes, inheritance taxes, and personnel gains tax. why all this money taxes have be paid on, but the lawyer, and the tax codes allows the rich and fed/state gov. To steal personnel wealth form those that not in the loop. Deduction are rich welfare and since tax was invented was to steal from the common people.

Flat tax gets ride of the deduction that allow billionaire to pay less taxes than their Secretaries. Time to get ride all the privilege tax cheaters and the system create nonsense business like need to have somebody to prepare taxes due to the thousands of pages of tax codes.

The federal government should not be allowed to spend more than it takes in.
Good example is the present regime. Raised taxes and still can't spend within the intake. The government has failed the people and should be ran out ot town on rail WITH NO Benifits due to failure. :rant-rave:

[Guest]

Carson said a 15 percent tax on everyone would work because he would eliminate all deductions.

This would have a very bad effect on the housing industry as homeowners count on the mortgage interest deductions. He would also eliminate exemptions for health insurance and retirement savings.

This info can be found on page A6 of today's Daily Sun.

Carson may be very likable but certainly is not Presidential material.

I hope Fiorina was being cutesy when she said she would pare down the tax codes from 70,000 pages down to 3 pages. Agree that 70,000 is ridiculous but 3 pages? Not even realistic.

Winner last night? Christy.[/QUOTE]
Personally being a Rep. I don't think Christy stands a chance. In the end I think it will be either Trump, Carson or Cruz, maybe. I've always said a flat tax would keep the tax cheats from hiding money before they're taxed. Tax them before they can hide it. A flat tax will tax everybody the same.10 or 15% tax won't hurt anybody any more it you make 10 million a yr. or like me $30,000. a yr. We would be in the shape we are now if the rich & the politicians were paying the same tax as the ones trying to make ends meet week by week! All of these candidate polls to me don't mean squat, a lot can change in a yr.

[Guest]

No, Christy has a much better chance of beating Hillary than does Trump, Cruz, or Carson.

Remember, too, it is not the popular vote that wins but the electoral vote. For example, all of Florida's electoral votes will go Democrat thanks to large metropolitan Democratic blocs.

[Guest]

Why is it the one with the nasty remarks is named Guest ?? If you can 't stand up for your liberal philosophy by other than a generic non de plume, its not worth noting. Quite a few here have fought and shed blood for your right to put forth your ideas. And these people would debate you face to face.. Something I gather mr GUEST would not aspire to.

[Guest]

I can tell you some taxes that need to be cut. Death taxes, inheritance taxes, and personnel gains tax. why all this money taxes have be paid on, but the lawyer, and the tax codes allows the rich and fed/state gov. To steal personnel wealth form those that not in the loop. Deduction are rich welfare and since tax was invented was to steal from the common people.

Flat tax gets ride of the deduction that allow billionaire to pay less taxes than their Secretaries. Time to get ride all the privilege tax cheaters and the system create nonsense business like need to have somebody to prepare taxes due to the thousands of pages of tax codes.

The federal government should not be allowed to spend more than it takes in.
Good example is the present regime. Raised taxes and still can't spend within the intake. The government has failed the people and should be ran out ot town on rail WITH NO Benifits due to failure. :rant-rave:

Just the opposite. That billionaire paid less taxes(on the present system) on his salary because he didn't have a salary. A flat tax would mean that he would pay, say 15% of his earnings and she would pay 15% of her earnings. Now, you do the math.

The best way to get rid of any cheating (and that's iffie) is to go to get rid of income tax and go to a federal sales tax. Then, you would only pay taxes on luxuries such as cars, boats, eating out, liquor, clothes, etc. If you wanted to save money in a bank and accrue interest, then you could without paying taxes on the interest. If a billionaire wanted to buy a car, he would pay sales taxes on it. No more cheating on your income tax. No more tax fraud.