NPR endorses Gary Johnson's tax reform plan... sort of

desert dude

Well-Known Member
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/19/nprs-planet-money-endorses-gary-johnson#comments
One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses?
Two: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Neither employees nor employers pay taxes on workplace health insurance benefits. That encourages fancier insurance coverage, driving up usage and, therefore, health costs overall. Eliminating the deduction will drive up costs for people with workplace healthcare, but makes the health-care market fairer.
Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.
Six: Legalize marijuana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of money to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich.


<edit>I should clarify. The six points listed are not from Gary Johnson but rather from a group of NPR economists. They just happen to be similar, though not identical, to what Johnson espouses.
 
I'm voting for Gary, but I'm not sure I'm completely on board with number two.

He makes it sound like my badass insurance that I pay a pretty penny for won't exist as much because some company's will just end the health insurance program. I also don't want my costs to go up more than what they are now. I pay around 600 a month for it. Kicks ass though.
 
I'm voting for Gary, but I'm not sure I'm completely on board with number two.

He makes it sound like my badass insurance that I pay a pretty penny for won't exist as much because some company's will just end the health insurance program. I also don't want my costs to go up more than what they are now. I pay around 600 a month for it. Kicks ass though.

I should clarify. The six points listed are not from Gary Johnson but rather from a group of NPR economists. They just happen to be similar, though not identical, to what Johnson espouses.
 
This would crush people who rent houses for income.

If I had to pay 3,000 dollars in taxes on the income I get from renting a house it would completely eliminate any income gains that I make. The housing market would tank yet again because rentals would suddenly not be worth investing in.
 
have fun voting for johnson. ya might as well vote for big bird.

but at least with voting for johnson, it ups obama's lead in colorado, perhaps elsewhere.

:lol:
 
The plan seems mighty lean on Federal revenue. That raises the question of servicing the enormous debt incurred thus far. Was that mentioned/handled? (open question) How would you do that? cn
 
This would crush people who rent houses for income.

If I had to pay 3,000 dollars in taxes on the income I get from renting a house it would completely eliminate any income gains that I make. The housing market would tank yet again because rentals would suddenly not be worth investing in.
Alternatively it would cause a natural rise in rent which would create incentive to.buy houses which would help the housing market.
 
The plan seems mighty lean on Federal revenue. That raises the question of servicing the enormous debt incurred thus far. Was that mentioned/handled? (open question) How would you do that? cn

Bump. I would really like to know if there is a provision in the more laissez-faire philosophies (which are the ones who argue for defunding the Federal Government) for this issue. cn
 
have fun voting for johnson. ya might as well vote for big bird.

but at least with voting for johnson, it ups obama's lead in colorado, perhaps elsewhere.

:lol:

I have seen polls that indicate otherwise, i.e. Johnson pulls more Democratic voters than Republican voters. Johnson's strong position on civil liberties is attractive to Democrats who care about civil liberties, Barack Obama not so much.
 
Bump. I would really like to know if there is a provision in the more laissez-faire philosophies (which are the ones who argue for defunding the Federal Government) for this issue. cn

I will answer this from a philosophical point of view. First, identify core functions that the federal government must perform, then create a taxation scheme that pays for those functions. This necessarily means getting rid of most current federal government functions. There will be pain,and gnashing of teeth. Sandra Fluke might have to become celibate or pay for her $6.00 per month birth control pills on her own.
 
I will answer this from a philosophical point of view. First, identify core functions that the federal government must perform, then create a taxation scheme that pays for those functions. This necessarily means getting rid of most current federal government functions. There will be pain,and gnashing of teeth. Sandra Fluke might have to become celibate or pay for her $6.00 per month birth control pills on her own.

I get the bit about funding forward-looking core functions, but there is also the question of an already-accumulated debt somewhere around ten trillion dollars. It seems to me that no matter what, if we posit continuity of the nation as a "going concern", a huge amount of taxation with its proceeds disappearing into the black hole of paying for what we're currently playing ... seems unavoidable. cn
 
I get the bit about funding forward-looking core functions, but there is also the question of an already-accumulated debt somewhere around ten trillion dollars. It seems to me that no matter what, if we posit continuity of the nation as a "going concern", a huge amount of taxation with its proceeds disappearing into the black hole of paying for what we're currently playing ... seems unavoidable. cn

Yeah, I agree. That is the bad thing about debt, you have to pay it back.

You can always inflate your way out of the debt, i.e. default in an unethical but legal way, but inflation has many negative consequences for the peons in America, and the world. Inflation seems to be the chosen method currently. I don't think GJ would choose the inflation route because I believe he is more ethical than that.
 
Yeah, I agree. That is the bad thing about debt, you have to pay it back.

You can always inflate your way out of the debt, i.e. default in an unethical but legal way, but inflation has many negative consequences for the peons in America, and the world. Inflation seems to be the chosen method currently. I don't think GJ would choose the inflation route because I believe he is more ethical than that.

Worse ... a weasel inflation. The terms keep getting redefined so that the Gov't doesn't have to be honest about COLA. Since I'm on SSDI as sole income, I'm a'hurtin'. There's no to minimal inflation, despite prices taking off like spooked Phantoms. Go figure. cn
 
Worse ... a weasel inflation. The terms keep getting redefined so that the Gov't doesn't have to be honest about COLA. Since I'm on SSDI as sole income, I'm a'hurtin'. There's no to minimal inflation, despite prices taking off like spooked Phantoms. Go figure. cn

I feel your pain. Inflation is hurting all of us, but those on fixed incomes get it the worst.

In the history of the world, every fiat currency has failed. The current ones are marking time while they await failure.
 
Alternatively it would cause a natural rise in rent which would create incentive to.buy houses which would help the housing market.

I would venture to say that the majority of people that rent could not purchase homes in this market.

Not that many renters have great credit and 20% down.

And again the housing market would tank so it would really hurt several sectors.
 
Back
Top