Category Archives: News

Which presidential candidate will simplify the tax code and create jobs?

How can we make the complicated tax code simpler?

Steve Forbes explains what would work, in Forbes magazine.

He writes:

NEXT TO THE UNSTABLE DOLLAR, the biggest deadweight today on the American economy is the horrific federal income tax code. It is past time we junked this incomprehensible, opportunity-killing and corrupting monstrosity and replaced it with a simple flat tax. The returns we, the people, must file by today (even if you file for an extension, you have to pay what you owe Uncle Sam by this date) should be the last time we have to suffer through this ordeal.

More than 40 countries and jurisdictions (such as Hong Kong) have variations of a flat tax, and those systems have worked well.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a flat tax is a single-rate income tax system that has few or no deductions. You could literally fill out your return on a single sheet of paper or with a few keystrokes on your computer.

The most basic and profound argument for a flat tax is moral.

The IRS estimates we spend 6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms. Experts calculate we spend over $200 billion a year complying with the income tax code.

The nice thing about the flat tax is that you can already see what happens in countries that have adopted it, by looking at the change in GDP growth in the years before the flat tax was adopted compared to the years after the flat tax was adopted.

Here’s a comparison of 3 countries that adopted flat tax rates at different times:

Forget the rhetoric: what happens to GDP growth after enacting a flat tax policy?
Forget the rhetoric: what happens to GDP growth after enacting a flat tax policy?

(Source)

As you can see, when people waste less time filling in their taxes, they have more time for productive activities. And don’t let anyone fool you: a productive economy creates more jobs, and builds the resumes of the workers so that they can be resilient to layoffs and other challenges to their peace of mind and security.

So which candidate is going to give us a flat tax, and the economic growth that goes with it?

Ted and Heidi Cruz have a plan to simplify the tax code
Ted and Heidi Cruz have a plan to simplify the tax code

The centrist Forbes magazine summarizes Cruz’s flat tax plan:

Ted Cruz claims that his tax plan would supercharge economic growth, boosting GDP by as much as 5% a year for a decade or more. That’s, umm, an ambitious goal to be sure. However, there is actually good reason to believe that he’s right. As long as we’re careful about how we define GDP growth and also as long as we consider all the ways in which his plan will change the economy. This does mean being a little perverse in our assumptions: but also correct in our assumptions.

The basics of the plan are that income taxes will be cut for all. Also, that pretty much all business taxation will be replaced with a 16% flat tax. It is claimed (and Cruz has Art Laffer there claiming it with him) that such a relief from the burdens of taxation will produce an explosion of economic growth. This is not, I feel, entirely believable to put it mildly. While there may well be specific bottlenecks in the taxation system the total take, at 35 to 36% of GDP, isn’t large enough for it to be causing a general lack of economic growth. Not in my opinion at least and in the opinion of vanishingly few economists too.

Conservative economist Stephen Moore says this about the Cruz plan in The American Spectator:

Senator Ted Cruz has a flat tax plan borrowed from a blueprint in a book by Arthur Laffer and me called, Return to Prosperity.

[…]Conservatives should be excited about the Cruz flat tax. ‎It’s what tax filers have been waiting decades for:

First, the Cruz plan would give America the lowest tax rates since the income tax was ‎devised 100 years ago. For this reason, these plan are estimated by the Tax Foundation to grow the economy by a gigantic $2 trillion extra GDP per year after 10 years. That’s exactly the opposite effect of the Hillary and Bernie show plans.

Second, Cruz’s plan eliminates almost all deductions and credits — which is how they get the rate so low. The IRS could be dramatically shrunk in size. Don’t forget, when there are fewer deductions, there are fewer ways to cheat on your taxes. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive to cheat, which means greater voluntary compliance.

Third, because the Cruz plan is “border adjustable,” imports are taxed at the flat rate when they are brought into the U.S., but American products sold abroad are not taxed at all. This would level the global playing field for American manufacturers, tech firms, and drug companies and bring these jobs scampering back to the U.S. Blue collar union workers should love this.

[…]Some conservatives complain that the tax is too efficient and so it will raise too much money.

Moore works for the Heritage Foundation, the number one conservative think tank, which features conservative policy on social, fiscal and foreign policy issues. My favorite think tank.

And famous economist Art Laffer says this: (H/T Dad)

Art Laffer is a speaker for the American Enterprise Institute, which champions the free enterprise system that made America great.

If you are nervous about the economy, you need to vote for Ted Cruz and get this plan enacted. Imagine not having to worry about losing your job, losing work hours, and so on. I would like to get in on a stock market boom so that I can pay off my mortgage faster. If you all join me in voting for Ted Cruz, we can all stop worrying about money for the next 10 years. But we need people to get behind economic policies that work. Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore and Art Laffer are experts in tax policy. We need to listen to the experts, and we need to do what has been proven to work, not what sounds good.

Related posts

 

Cruz out-organized Trump again in Arizona and Virginia

Donald Trump with some of his supporters
Donald Trump with some of his registered Democrat supporters

Leftist Politico reports on the battle for GOP delegates.

Excerpt:

Donald Trump’s campaign got burned again Saturday in the hunt for loyal delegates to the Republican national convention — this time on turf where he’d recently trounced his rivals in primary elections.

[…][H]e walked away in defeat in Arizona — losing about 40 of the 55 delegate slots that were up for grabs on the day.

[…]Though all of Arizona’s delegates are bound to vote for Trump on the first vote at the national convention, most are likely to flip to Cruz if Trump is unable to clinch the nomination.

And Cruz wasn’t done racking up victories on Trump’s turf. In Virginia, where Trump beat Cruz by a two-to-one margin in a March 1 primary, Cruz’s forces captured at least 10 of the 13 delegates on the ballot. The Texas senator won 18 of 24 delegates in local Missouri conventions, even though Trump won that state on primary day as well.

In all, Cruz won about 80 delegate slots on the day of the more than 170 up for grabs. Another handful went to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and even Marco Rubio — who dropped out of the race on March 15 — scored about seven supportive delegates. Another dozen haven’t revealed who they support yet.

What’s amazing is that the Cruz campaign could have had all 13 delegates in Virginia, but the campaign let Donald Trump have 3 delegates.

ABC News explains:

Cruz surrogate Ken Cuccinnelli argued that the outcome today was not out of line, because Trump only won 38 percent of the vote in Virginia.

“Ted is successfully coalescing — unifying, most of the rest of the party and that’s the only way we can do this, that’s the only way we can win a vote like this,” he told ABC after the vote.

“That and having a good grassroots is why we’re doing so well in these events all around the country,” he added.

Cuccinelli went on to say the slate was an “olive branch” to Trump supporters.

“If we wanted a 13-0 slate, we could have had it. Instead we supported the mixed slate that was a unity slate, and that’s an effort we’re trying to make all around the country,” he said.

Incredible. I don’t know if you guys remember Ken Cuccinelli, but I am a huge admirer of that man. He lost the race to be governor because the GOP establishment did absolutely nothing to back him in the election, because he was seen as “too conservative”. Too much of a Tea Party outsider. Cuccinelli has made positive comments about intelligent design – that’s how I know of him. And he is very strong against global warming socialism, as well. Nice to see people I respect on Team Cruz-Fiorina. We have all the real conservatives.

Today, Chris Wallace interviewed Trump about his incredibly high unfavorable numbers among Hispanics and women:

I for one am not surprised that someone so self-contradictory cannot win any delegates at the state level.

Related posts

A lesson about men for marriage-minded women from the movie “High Noon”

Marine prays with his wife on their wedding day
Marine prays with his wife on their wedding day

One of my favorite movies for explaining the differences between men and women is “High Noon” (1952).

Here’s the summary from IMDB:

Former marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is preparing to leave the small town of Hadleyville, New Mexico, with his new bride, Amy (Grace Kelly), when he learns that local criminal Frank Miller has been set free and is coming to seek revenge on the marshal who turned him in. When he starts recruiting deputies to fight Miller, Kane is discouraged to find that the people of Hadleyville turn cowardly when the time comes for a showdown, and he must face Miller and his cronies alone.

The main theme of the film concerns Amy’s decision to break her wedding vows the very day that she makes them. She tells her new husband that he must bow to her will, and give up his male role as protector. When he explains his reasons for standing his ground to her practically (Miller will hunt them down) and morally (he has a duty protect the town), she dismisses both. She tells him that if he doesn’t run away from Miller and his gang with her, that she will get on the train and leave town by herself.

The intro of film shows the member’s of Miller’s gang assembling, and the words of the song explain the central conflict between husband and wife:

Here’s the part of the lyrics we care about:

The noonday train will bring Frank Miller.
If I’m a man I must be brave
And I must face that deadly killer
Or lie a coward, a craven coward,
Or lie a coward in my grave.

O to be torn ‘twixt love and duty!
S’posin’ I lose my fair-haired beauty!
Look at that big hand move along
Nearin’ high noon.

He made a vow while in State’s Prison,
Vow’d it would be my life or his’n
I’m not afraid of death, but O,
What will I do if you leave me?

Do not forsake me O my darlin’
You made that promise when we wed.
Do not forsake me O my darlin’
Although you’re grievin’, I can’t be leavin’
Until I shoot Frank Miller dead.

What’s interesting is that his new wife Amy apparently does not understand the meaning of wedding vows or the natural roles of good men as protectors of the weak, and fighters against evil. Although she vowed to stick by him and help him, the minute anything threatening appears that makes her feel unhappy, she abandons her vows and abandons her man. Let’s break down her mistakes now, using actual conversations from the movie.

First, she doesn’t understand or respect the man she married as a man:

Kane: [while riding out of town] It’s no good. I’ve got to go back, Amy.

Amy: Why?

Kane: This is crazy. I haven’t even got any guns.

Amy: Then let’s go on. Hurry.

Kane: No, that’s what I’ve been thinkin’. They’re making me run. I’ve never run from anybody before.

Amy: I don’t understand any of this.

Kane: [after looking at his vest watch] Well, I haven’t got time to tell ya.

Amy: Then don’t go back, Will.

Kane: I’ve got to. That’s the whole thing. [He turns the buggy around and rides back into town]

Her feelings and her desires for the world to be a happy place for her are so strong that they cloud her judgment.

Second, she doesn’t understand the threat posed by evil men:

More:

Kane: I sent a man up five years ago for murder. He was supposed to hang. But up North, they commuted it to life and now he’s free. I don’t know how. Anyway, it looks like he’s coming back.

Amy: I still don’t understand.

Kane: He was always wild and kind of crazy. He’ll probably make trouble.

Amy: But that’s no concern of yours, not anymore.

Kane: I’m the one who sent him up.

Amy: Well, that was part of your job. That’s finished now. They’ve got a new marshal.

Kane: He won’t be here until tomorrow. Seems to me I’ve got to stay. Anyway, I’m the same man with or without this. [He pins his badge on his vest]

Amy: Oh, that isn’t so.

Kane: I expect he’ll come lookin’ for me. Three of his old bunch are waiting at the depot.

Amy: That’s exactly why we ought to go.

Kane: They’ll just come after us, four of ’em, and we’d be all alone on the prairie.

Amy: We’ve got an hour.

Kane: What’s an hour?…What’s a hundred miles? We’d never be able to keep that store, Amy. They’d come after us and we’d have to run again, as long as we live.

Amy: No we wouldn’t, not if they didn’t know where to find us. Oh Will! Will, I’m begging you, please let’s go.

Kane: I can’t.

Amy: Don’t try to be a hero. You don’t have to be a hero, not for me.

Kane: I’m not trying to be a hero. If you think I like this, you’re crazy.

Instead of recognizing how her feelings are deceiving her about the threat and trusting her husband, she tries to force him to accept her mistaken view of reality by threatening to abandon him.

One of Kane’s ex-girlfriends has a talk with Amy, which helps her to understand who Kane is, and what is expected of her:

Amy: That man downstairs, the clerk, he said things about you and Will. I’ve been trying to understand why he wouldn’t go with me, and now all I can think of is that it’s got to be because of you…Let him go, he still has a chance. Let him go.

Helen: He isn’t staying for me. I haven’t spoken to him for a year – until today. I am leaving on the same train you are…What kind of woman are you? How can you leave him like this? Does the sound of guns frighten you that much?

Amy: I’ve heard guns. My father and my brother were killed by guns. They were on the right side but that didn’t help them any when the shooting started. My brother was nineteen. I watched him die. That’s when I became a Quaker. I don’t care who’s right or who’s wrong. There’s got to be some better way for people to live. Will knows how I feel about it.

Helen: I hate this town. I always hated it – to be a Mexican woman in a town like this.

Amy: I understand.

Helen: You do? That’s good. I don’t understand you. No matter what you say. If Kane was my man, I’d never leave him like this. I’d get a gun. I’d fight.

Amy: Why don’t you?

Helen: He is not my man. He’s yours.

Helen understands the need for a wife to stand by her man. But Amy’s response to evil is to shut her eyes and focus on feeling good and being happy. Notice that her “better way” is unspecified – it’s just a feeling she has that pacificism and no-violence will somehow “work” to stop evil. But in reality, pacifism is not a “better way” of dealing with evil – it does not work. Her pacifist response not only does not make evil go away, it actually encourages more evil. Weakness emboldens evildoers, and laying down your arms provokes them to do more evil. Will Kane knows this, but she won’t listen to him.

You can watch the final gunfight here, as well as Amy’s final decision:

So, this is why I really recommend this movie as a discussion-starter when you like a girl and are thinking of marrying her. It clarifies the essential problem with many young women today not being ready for marriage. To be fair, most women come around to respect their husbands and his different roles after they get married. However, the risk of divorce is so dangerous that it makes sense to bring it up for discussion before the marriage happens. Marriage is supposed to be an engine to serve God, and the success of that enterprise cannot be left to chance. You can’t just rely on the fact that she says the words of the vow, you have to check to see if she has a habit of keeping her promises when it goes against her own self-interest.

Ask yourself: Who are you, as a man? And does your woman accept that you have obligations to stand up to evil and do good ? Will she support you in your battle against evil, or will the marriage just be about her feelings and desires? I would especially beware of women who think that God is speaking to them through their feelings and desires. Look at her friends: are they practical and successful? Or are they irresponsible, unaccountable and reckless? Look at her father: does he have a plan for her, and does he lead her to be practical, frugal and hard-working? If you are not going to get an ally and a supporter in a wife, then you will not be able to serve God well, as a married man. Think about it.