GOP 'simple' flat tax proposals simply don't add up "...Aside from their obvious simplicity, the latest flat tax proposals are being pitched as a broad tax cut for the middle class. But, in fact, most Americans would end up paying a greater share of their income — except the very rich. That's because — under the current system — those at the bottom of the income ladder pay a much smaller share of their income than those at the top...." http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/11/gop-simple-flat-tax-proposals-simply-do-not-add-up.html
That is an interesting chart but your blanket treatment of the all the GOP tax plans as simple flat tax is not accurate. Ron Paul proposes a form of value added tax as does Ted Cruz. Your chart does not include payroll taxes. In Cruz's case he removes the employee social security tax entirely...that is a reduction of 6% for all wage earners in the lower quintiles making a huge reduction in the real taxes they would pay. In the other flat tax proposals you have to look at how the removal of write-offs effects the different quintiles...it raises tax liability more for the top quintile that for the lower in that you need to have high tax income to make use of deductions. You have to look and see at what income level a flat tax will be applied. Not all the GOP flat tax plans have the same income thresholds or basic deductions. Bottom line is that you are getting a lot of tax from the top quintile and hardly any from the bottom three. If you ever are going to increase revenue in a no growth environment you will have to take it from the middle, otherwise you won't get much revenue, the rich will shelter and mysteriously stop making as much taxable income, and as they are getting old, they will stop working.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...ons-idUSL1N1373DN20151113#5srG2q1MIOlXDcAj.97 http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/28/pfizer-allegan-considering-a-merger-dj-citing-sources.html http://www.emporis.com/images/show/873647-Large-fullheightview.jpg Pfizer world headquarters is a landmark in Manhattan
Pfizer tax avoidance not new: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/pfizer-tax-idUSL8N1381SF20151116#E3pHpc2dqHWuASzJ.97
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Pfizer-Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/your-money/a-tax-cutting-move-that-pfizer-can-hardly-resist.html http://www.americansfortaxfairness....-Dodging-Rx-Stash-Profits-Offshore-Final1.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/t...y-ireland-adjusts-its-corporate-tax-draw.html
Two articles from a progressive tax lobby and two from the times. So what? Is it news that Pfizer has an incentive to do an inversion and keep foreign taxed earnings off shore? They are actively scrutinized by the IRS and it does not appear they are breaking any law. Is it news that Ireland has 12.5% corporate tax rate and that the EU Commission attacks it and the OECD stays up at night trying to scrap in favor of an international tax cartel? So what? You have some point?
" You have some point?" I'm sorry...I didn't realize you owned this thread and I needed to ask your permission to post here. There may be other readers who, unlike you, don't know everything and would benefit from being appraised of developments and background in a topical area. As I come across articles that are of interest to me in this area I will post them here and I may even post some suggested trades. If you wish to avoid the pain of having to read the obvious simply put me on ignore. I'd be flattered. BTW here is another reference that you might be interested in: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...onality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568
So sad to see a rude ad hominem attack again for no purpose. Silly me, I thought there might be a point, maybe even an agreement. I am sorry if I gave you the idea that you needed my permission in any way. I thought you might be trying to say something, a comment, something to consider. I thought a posting promised an opinion, some clue to what the interest in it was. I thought the thread was for discourse. Thank you anyway, for appraising me of your purpose; now I don't have to wonder about your point anymore.