Fred Thompson once again shows his campaign is the one of substance by realeasing a detailed tax reform plan. His plan would lower the corporate tax rate in order to spur economic development. His plan would also give people a choice to stay in the current tax system or opt into a flat rate system with lower tax rates and higher standard deduction but less itemized deductions. This plan would save people money on taxes while making the tax filing itself easier. Once again Fred Thompson has the substance while the other campaigns are being carried on hype put out by the media. The liberal media must be scared of a true conservative.
Here is the plan
In today's competitive global economy, a fair, simple, and pro-growth tax system is essential for America's success. America must be the best place in the world to invest and create high-paying jobs.
Fred Thompson's Plan for Tax Relief and Economic Growth promotes fairness and simplicity in the tax code and will create greater growth in the economy. It is based on a fundamental assumption that keeping tax rates low increases economic growth and enhances American competitiveness in the global economy. Increased economic growth will lead to higher wages and higher levels of employment in America. Equally important, lower taxes enhance the personal and economic freedom of all Americans by allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Allowing Americans to control their own financial future has been integral to our nation's economic success and strength since its founding, and is the key to our future.
The economic proposals offered by Democrats will move us in the wrong direction -- their plan for higher taxes, in particular, will reduce America's competitiveness, push investment and jobs overseas, and send more of workers' and families' income to Washington. The conservative approach is to reduce government spending and return more money to America's families.
The following elements of the Thompson Plan for Tax Relief and Economic Growth will spur economic growth and move the nation towards a fairer, simpler tax system on the way to Fred Thompson's ultimate goal of fundamental tax reform.
1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 has proved critical to generating a strong economy that has experienced growth despite the war on terror, the collapse in the housing market, and other economic challenges over the last six years. Unless action is taken, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase after December 31, 2010. Allowing this tax hike will impose an enormous financial burden on American families, slow economic growth, cost America jobs, and make it more difficult to address the country's long-term budget, economic, and security challenges. The Thompson plan ensures the following:
*Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600.
*Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.
*Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
*Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts,529 college savings plans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
*Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
*Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.
2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax. Current law provides death tax relief, but only through 2010. The death tax is inherently unfair. Under the Thompson Plan, the death tax would be permanently repealed, thus protecting millions of American families, including small business owners and family farmers, from double taxation at rates ranging as high as 55 percent.
3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a separate tax system that was intended to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, it is penalizing Americans it was never intended to affect. While in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson authored legislation that would have repealed the AMT. Consistent with that earlier proposal, the Thompson plan will eliminate the AMT as part of broader tax and spending reform. Until comprehensive reform is feasible, the Thompson plan would index the exemption amounts annually so that millions of middle class families will not become subject to this tax.
4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. The United States has one of the highest rates of tax on businesses of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. EvenJapan is currently considering reducing its corporate tax rate. Economic studies suggest that the U.S. Treasury is actually losing tax revenue by keeping the corporate tax rate so high. In order to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, the Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world's leading economies—the nations of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development. This tax reduction will promote U.S. competitiveness, encourage companies to keep their operations (and jobs) in the U.S., and spur continued economic expansion and growth.
5.Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and employ nearly 59 million Americans -- more than half of the nation's private-sector workforce. Women own a quarter of all small businesses, minorities are nearing the 20% mark, and Hispanic Americans are opening their own businesses at a rate three times the national average. Current law allows small businesses to write-off purchases of equipment of up to $125,000 per year, rather than depreciating those assets over time. Making expensing of equipment and other small business items permanent will encourage greater investment and growth.
6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules. The current depreciation schedules are outdated and in many cases do not reflect the realistic useful life of an asset. This is particularly true for investments in high technology. For example, computers must be depreciated over three years, even though they become obsolete in half that time. The Thompson plan would simplify and update these schedules to allow American businesses to make the investments they need to compete and create more high-quality jobs.
7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.
America 's economic future depends on our nation's ability to maintain its competitive and innovative spirit. Solutions to challenges in our economy are found in the homes and small businesses of ordinary Americans, not in the halls of Washington. Fred Thompson's goal is to allow Americans to retain greater control of their own money.
To do that, Fred Thompson believes we need a more limited, more effective federal government. Currently, government spending is projected to grow at nearly twice the rate of inflation over the next several years. This spending path is unsustainable and will hamper our economy unless fiscal discipline is imposed. It is critical that we address the problem of government spending, especially for entitlement programs, if the U.S. economy is grow and thrive in the coming decades. The Thompson Plan for Tax Relief and Economic Growth provides commonsense solutions to increase American competitiveness in the 21st century. These solutions will allow Americans to keep more of their money and encourage companies and entrepreneurs to invest and create jobs in the United States. Enhancing the choices of taxpayers, permanently reducing taxes, encouraging investment in America's corporations and small businesses, and restraining government spending are all steps in the right direction. America's economy has endured several challenges over the last several years -- it is time to move forward and enter a new era of economic security and prosperity.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
Consider the fact that the period of America's greatest economic growth, from the mid-30's to the early 80's, included a 91% top tax rate. Compare the numbers from those decades of growth with the anemic growth that we've experienced since neocon Ronnie took office, and the argument for expansion of regressive taxation falls flat.
Then, throw in the caustic effect that piling massive wealth onto the top 1% has on democracy in general, and you've got a complete loser scenario, unless a fascist society is your goal.
Fred may be a great guy, but he's no presidential candidate. He's a so-so actor with a serious lack of motivation and a bundle o' bad neocon ideas that have failed miserably in the past. It's time for significant change, not more of the same.
Pay attention. Paul is a republican.
Btw, Fred Thompson is a dumb, lazy sombitch who will do nothing but carry on the same old failed neocon policies that have brought this nation to its knees. He may be a really swell guy, but he's not up to the task at hand at all.
It is amazing the only thing you have to attack Fred on is being lazy and dumb. He really scares you far-lefters doesent he.
You are also wrong on tax policy Clark, lowering the corporate tax rate is good. That is why even France is doing it now. I also dont understand how simplifying the tax code would be a bad idea. You talk about 92% tax rates like they are good. They are not, they came at a time when we were growing anyway. The fact remains that in 1900 taxes composed 3% of GDP and now it composes 19% of GDP that is a government out of control and we need to give more money back to the people. All people.
Those are his two most well-known characteristics. Once we learn some more ugly truth about him, we'll be happy to share that as well. Btw, it was Nixon who called him the "dumbest sombitch he'd ever met," not some wild-liberal. And, his lazy moniker was well-earned during his stint as an unmotivated senator.
Sorry. I'm sure he's a swell guy and all, but he's not presidential material. We've already had dumb and lazy. We don't need a repeat.
"You are also wrong on tax policy Clark, lowering the corporate tax rate is good. "
Gee, I guess that's why there was zero corporate growth in this country until Redink Ronnie came along, right? Check your facts. How many of today's iconic giants of the corporate world grew to power during the period of the nation's highest corporate tax rate? Do you think that GM, IBM, Ford, Chrysler, Standard oil, US Steel, etc. only popped up after Redink Ronnie took office?
"You talk about 92% tax rates like they are good."
Again, the US economy grew more consistently and more robustly during that period of 91% top tax rate than it has since the neocons began slashing and burning.
The point of the 91% top tax rate wasn't to take everything away from high earners. The point was to limit the amount of wealth amassed by the upper 1%, because that has a highly caustic, damaging effect on democracy. Witness today's political environment for proof of that.
The same theory was what motivated the estate tax. There is simply no need for 1% of the people in this country to have the sort of obscene wealth that they have, and there is absolutely no need for them to be able to pass that insane wealth to their children, tax free. Why should these kids be able to get a free pass in life, simply because they won the gene lottery?
In the neocon vision, Paris Hilton would acquire every penny of her inherited wealth, tax free. Then, she could invest it in dividend-producing stocks and collect all of the profits from that, tax-free. Then, when she dies, she could pass all of this massive arsenal of wealth onto her children, entirely tax free. Her children would have to do NOTHING to earn a single penny their entire life, yet would have acquired a massive fortune and given nothing back to the society that allowed it to be earned in the first place.
In neocon-land, this cycle would just repeat unendingly, so that, in the future, the 1% ruling elite would never, ever have to lift a finger to earn a single penny their entire life, and would never have to contribute one penny of their inherited wealth to the betterment of society.
The ironic thing is that these neocons howl about "lazy people" who "just sit around collecting welfare." They simply cannot fathom that the same occurs within the oligarch circle!
"They are not, they came at a time when we were growing anyway."
They were dramatically increased from 25% to 63% in 1932. As I recall, there wasn't a whole lot of spectacular growth going on at the time, because the neocons had just finished destroying the economy with your regressive tax policies that favored the uber wealthy.
The facts simply do not support your beliefs on this. Historically, the US economy has grown more, and the DJIA has performed better under progressive taxation. That's a fact.
"The fact remains that in 1900 taxes composed 3% of GDP "
That's a foolish, naive argument. Do you REALLY want the nation to rewind itself to 1900? No communications, no power grid, no dams and irrigation systems, no standing military, very limited education, very limited research, etc.
"19% of GDP that is a government out of control and we need to give more money back to the people."
Which party has been in control of the white house for most of the past 3 decades, when most of this dramatic explosion in federal spending began? When Redink Ronnie took office, the country was the world's #1 creditor nation. We had roughly $1 trillion in debt, leftover from Johnson's Vietnam debacle and his Great Society program. Redink immediately implemented his regressive taxation and massively grew the national debt. HW Bush added to that massive debt. By the time Clinton took office, the nation was over $5 trillion in debt, and it was growing rapidly. When he left office, he handed off a large surplus, with no end in sight. Within his first year, Junior revered that into a deficit, and has since driven the country an additional $3 trillion into debt.
Now, what was the major difference between these presidents, 3 of whom was never able to muster a balanced budget, and 1 of whom not only produced a balanced budget, but produced a large, sustainable surplus?
The three who embraced debt instituted regressive tax codes, and the one who was able to get the budget under control instituted a progressive code. Do you remember how, in 1993, when Clinton introduced that budget plan, every single republican voice in the entire nation cried out in unison that his tax increases on millionaires were going to destroy the economy?
What happened to those voices, as the economy exploded in the ensuing years? Funny, but they suddenly disappeared, didn't they? Now, they're trying to re-write history, banking on the hope that people are dumb enough to have forgotten what Clinton did.
There couldn't be a more crystal clear example of contrast between the failure of neoconomics and the success of progressive taxation. Here you have a progressive taxer stuck right in the middle of 2 regressives on one side and one on the other. All three of the regressives have brought on stagnant economies, massive, crippling debt, and a massive shift of wealth from the middle class to the upper 1%.
This massive shift of wealth is terribly unhealthy to a democracy. Allowing that tiny percentage of people to control as much wealth as they currently do gives them superior access to the government, and they in turn can write their own legislation, to the detriment of the lower 99%. That is no longer a democracy. That is an oligarchy, and if you think it hasn't been happening, you're dead wrong.
There is a case to be made for simplification of the tax code, and for a dramatic reduction in corporate welfare, including shaving hundreds of billions of annual budgeting from the over-bloated military. However, the answer is NOT to shovel yet MORE public wealth at the oligarchs!
Interestingly, all of the democratic candidates have offered plans to reduce taxes on the middle class and working poor, but the "liberal media" has somehow forgotten to mention that. Instead, the message that the "liberal media" offers is that democrats want to raise "your" taxes. No, democrats want to raise MILLIONAIRE'S taxes. They take more from the commons, so it only makes sense that they should pay more.
Aside from that, it has been proven over and over and over again that progressive taxation works. It strengthens the middle class (which is why the oligarchs do not want it), and makes democracy stronger (another reason why the oligarchs do not want it).
Shockingly that is what we call Freedom there Clark. Why should the government keep asking for more more and more. The money that is being passed has already been taxed. It is only big government fans that find a need to tax money again and again.
I am not confused with the facts. I know the facts are on my side. Sorry, but Class Warfare has been something this country has been concerned with since the time of our founders and they warned against it.
The fact is government is out of control.
Clark-
When you were talking about budgets, you should know that deficits and surpluses are not controlled by Presidents. They are influenced by factors such as war and peace economics, and such. I will give you a story about your hero Clinton. When the Republican Congress based a budget bill his budget advisors realized that the budget was going to go to surplus all on its own. He could not have that so he hopped on a plan and ran to the press to get the credit.
The fact is that my opinions on policy are not partisan. I like the divided government during the Clinton and Republican Congress time. The fact is that a President should hold spending under control. Both Reagan and Bush have had much different presidencies than Clinton. Clinton was met with peace he did not have a cold war and did not have a foreign terrorist attack that did real damage to the economy.
How to spot a naive neocon that cannot respond to anything Clark Kent says. He will post a negative comment about Mr. Kent, in order to avoid having to actually discuss anything that Mr. Kent has offered, in a vain attempt to marginalize what Clark has said.
No, it's called "oligarchy." There is simply no valid justification for endorsing economic policies that allow the upper 1% to never have to lift a finger to earn a single penny throughout their lifetime, and at the same time allow them to amass ever-larger fortunes without contributing one dime to the commons that have provided that wealth for them.
This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, but rather, everything to do with handing special care and handling privleges to those who just happen to have been born into oppulance.
"The money that is being passed has already been taxed. "
This is an old, tired, pointless argument, particularly given the fact that your goal is to end all taxation on the upper 1%.
"Clark the only people who want a class warfare are the fans of socialism. "
Actually, the class warfare was launched by the neocons, the moment Redink Ronnie took office and began to punish the middle class with regressive tax policies, in order to shovel wealth from the middle class to the oligarchs. Do you think it's a coincidence that, at the same time that taxes were cut on the upper 1%, federal services that benefited the middle class were gutted, massive federal debt was piled on, taxes were increased at state and local levels in order to offset reduced federal funding for critical services, and labor unions came under attack?
This is a highly refined, well-organized effort to destroy the middle class, and it's working very, very effectively. Since Redink Ronnie started this ball rolling, middle class wages have stagnated, while the incomes of the upper 1% have skyrocketed to infinity. This is what the intent was. It's no accident.
If you're in the upper 1%, you should definitely be supporting these policies, as long as your conscience allows you to do so. If you're not in the upper 1%, you're a fool to support them, because YOU are under attack by them.
The trouble is, nearly 2/3 of the population believes that they're in the upper crust of society, believe it or not.
"But, a lot of people are just waiting for their handout and hate anyone who has made something for themelves and their families. "
See? You're fine with Paris Hilton's kids growing up never having to lift a finger to earn a penny, and profitting enormously and tax free from the public commons, but you can't tolerate the thought of somebody getting a penny of assistance when they really need it.
This is twisted thinking. Sorry, but it's just plain twisted.
"I am not confused with the facts. I know the facts are on my side. "
Yes, you are, and no, they are not. Check into it. GDP and DJIA returns have historically performed better under progressive, not regressive taxation. Regressive taxation brings on stagnation and recession, because it punishes the segment of the economy that spends.
"When you were talking about budgets, you should know that deficits and surpluses are not controlled by Presidents. They "
This is beyond absurd. Are you honestly trying to tell us that Clinton's obsession with balancing the budget had nothing to do with his success in doing so, and that the neocon's obsession with massive debt spending has had nothing to do with our current $9 trillion debt? Back away from the crack pipe. I think you've had enough.
"Both Reagan and Bush have had much different presidencies than Clinton. "
No kidding. Clinton wasn't busy fattening the wallets of his wealthy campaign contributors with taxpayer debt dollars.
The Republicans are nothing but liars compared to the Democrats, who are looking out for us the American people and want to make right what Bush has done wrong during his presidency. Why support a war that we are losing in regards to military personnel and has proven to be a waste of money that could have benefitted other more important programs??
I guess after thinking about it, why should Paris Hilton have to pay taxes on her inheritance especially when she is entitled to it??? It is not her fault that she has the status she does and shouldn't be penalized for it. That is just not fair!!!
Maybe part of me wants a Democrat to become President just to prove once and for all what the real agenda is by raising taxes, getting rid of the child tax credit, ruining health care by incorporating their own universal health care plan and causing more of the world to hate us more for not standing up to those people who threaten our freedoms.
Thanks Modern for posting this article and proving your point that Democrats are scared that Republicans might just have the right idea! Of course, I expect that my response will be taken out of context or "corrected," but I am merely expressing my views/opinion on the subject, nothing more.
This has everything to do with freedom. The freedom of a father to pass a family buisness to his children, etc. It also has something to do with protecting Americans form unnecessary seizures.
"This is an old, tired, pointless argument, particularly given the fact that your goal is to end all taxation on the upper 1%."
It is only old and tired because it is the truth. this money was taxed when it was earned. Why should people have to pay tax again just because you belive they have too much. Should we tax you again tonight because you have more than you need? It is not ending all taxation for the richest 1% actually they pay most of the taxes. They pay capital gains, taxes on new earnings, and dividend taxes. Besides their investments drive the economy. Horrible people I tell you.
"If you're not in the upper 1%, you're a fool to support them, because YOU are under attack by them"
a little more class warfare. Actually some may actually respect the Constiution and the role of Government.
"See? You're fine with Paris Hilton's kids growing up never having to lift a finger to earn a penny, and profitting enormously and tax free from the public commons, but you can't tolerate the thought of somebody getting a penny of assistance when they really need it."
She pays taxes on her earnings. Why should she have to pay taxes for money that has already been taxed and given to her. I just dont see why you feel the need to tax and tax and tax. I think it is an equality issue. I dont think you should have to pay tax on your money again either.
"This is beyond absurd. Are you honestly trying to tell us that Clinton's obsession with balancing the budget had nothing to do with his success in doing so, and that the neocon's obsession with massive debt spending has had nothing to do with our current $9 trillion debt? Back away from the crack pipe. I think you've had enough."
Your lack of history is comical. He did not care about surpluses until after the congress was taken by Repubs. It was triangulation. I give hime credit but it is not his alone.
"No kidding. Clinton wasn't busy fattening the wallets of his wealthy campaign contributors with taxpayer debt dollars."
Through a little bush hate for fun with no basis. The fact is there were wars for three presidents and peace for one. That is a big difference and should not be forgot.