Flip Flop- Ben Carson raises his Flat Tax proposal to 15%

Almost hidden in this CNN article is a very crucial fact- Ben Carson says his flat tax proposal is being increased from 10% to around 15%. This is huge news. Considering that many poor people currently pay no taxes after deductions and refunds, this would be a giant tax increase for people who can't afford it at all. I know my standard of living would be destroyed, and my income is around the US average. I've always said the flat tax is a stupid idea, but of course Republicans love it because it would lower the tax rate on the wealthy and raise it on the poor and middle class. Not to mention a big flat tax like this could cut consumer spending which would ruin the economy.

www.cnn.com...

Hes repeatedly said 10-15% just about every single time hes ever talked about it

Do you even research the garbage you post or is it just to be intentionally inflammatory and divisive?


Nice hit piece by CNN though, cant say im surprised

Carson has always been on the 10%-15% bandwagon, but I think the article does highlight a very important aspect that Carson would have to deal with as a President.

Would he raise the debt ceiling? He is right that we need to restructure our debt and change the way we spend, but it is very likely that he will have to make a decision about the debt ceiling with a budget that he has absolutely no say on.

So it does appear that he weaseled out of the question without giving a solid answer.

Would Ben Carson's plan make things worse than what this guy has done?


I think with Ben in there he would probably make things a lot better across the entire spectrum.. He could just not show up for work at the white house and substitute for Obama while Obama golfs for a single day and watch the national debt freeze for the day, rather than go up another 50 billion.

One of those 50 dollar talking robots could do it as well, if it could get elected. It could hire the Chicago Mob and do a little ballot stuffing like Obama paid Tony Rezko to do when he won a senate seat.

The possibilities are endless without Obama in there.
Just start using your imagination and you will quickly see what I mean !!

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

That sounds good and all, but back in the real world we have to realize that there are many more people involved than just Obama (the president). Budgets have to pass congress and so the blame lies on their shoulders as well for the rising debt.

Believing the debt would freeze if Obama took the day off or we hired a $50 robot is beyond absurd.

a reply to: CB328

I hate to say but as it stands with Carsons plan there is no poverty level or minimum income to be taxed.

I laud the idea that everyone has a stake, in reality it will cause hardship.

There still is need to step rates from minimum wage up through $40 or $50's

I think Trumps tax plan is far superior in reflecting reality of the times plus it'll lead to more employment compared to Carsons stated plan.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Well ya when you are just making stuff up it is pretty easy!

I know if you toe a certain party line your are not allowed to admit barry didn't anything good but your chart and meme is just wrong. Not saying he made the best economy but hardly been in free fall since he has been in office.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

That sounds good and all, but back in the real world we have to realize that there are many more people involved than just Obama (the president). Budgets have to pass congress and so the blame lies on their shoulders as well for the rising debt.

Believing the debt would freeze if Obama took the day off or we hired a $50 robot is beyond absurd.

That is quite correct. It really doesn't matter much as to budgetary affairs who occupies the White Hut.

What does matter about who occupies the White Hut is their stance on war. That's why I urge people who care to listen to look carefully at the candidates rhetoric about the military and global crises. If we stumble into putting another war monger in the White Hut, we're really screwed.

And to a certain extent, its occurred to me that the "budget" and tax issues are going to turn out to be the canary in the coal mine about what's really going to go wrong with the 2016 Presidential election. No matter who wins, 2/3 of the voting public will be disappointed within 90 days of the Inauguration. And that 2/3 of the voting public will probably represent only half, or less than half of the number of people eligible to vote. And that means that by the summer of 2017, 3/4 of the population will be disgusted with the "Presidency". And how does that relate to the budget and tax issues? It relates in that people will suddenly awaken to the fact that nothing's changed with Congress; they'll be stuck with a "do not" Congress and the truly significant problems like income inequality and the decline of the US middle class will never be addressed.

I think most of us know Ben Carson will never become the president. Hes not well known like most of the other candidates. The only reason he still running is to steal black votes from other candidates.

originally posted by: Echo007
I think most of us know Ben Carson will never become the president. Hes not well known like most of the other candidates. The only reason he still running is to steal black votes from other candidates.

Yes, you're right. He's been running to steal the black votes from other candidates.. (facepalm)

a reply to: CB328

That's what the flat tax is, trickle down economics. Plain and simple. That's worked out pretty swell for us right?

I don't think Ben golfs so that means he has about 60% more productive time than Obama....

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

That's what the flat tax is, trickle down economics. Plain and simple. That's worked out pretty swell for us right?

Really? On one side you and others would complain that the super rich pay no taxes even if they said to pay 90%...just find more write-offs. Now with a flat tax that can not be avoided it is the same thing.

A flat tax takes 15% right off the top, no deductions, no write-offs, just a straight 15%. I'm sure 15% would be on the high wage earner side and a lower flat tax would be for others, but if a guy grossed 1 million you do not think 150k is enough in fed taxes for that person?

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: Echo007
I think most of us know Ben Carson will never become the president. Hes not well known like most of the other candidates. The only reason he still running is to steal black votes from other candidates.

Yes, you're right. He's been running to steal the black votes from other candidates.. (facepalm)

Wow how racist are you? Because black people only vote for Black people right? Or arent smart enough to figure out how to vote for someone based on their ideas?

You know at some point the black democrat voters are going to get tired of being treated by the democrats, like they are stupid and have to be led by the nose

I see more racism coming out of the democrats and liberal left then anywhere else

And isnt he actually leading Trump in some polls?

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: CB328

That's what the flat tax is, trickle down economics. Plain and simple. That's worked out pretty swell for us right?

So weve got a flat tax right now?

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Really? On one side you and others would complain that the super rich pay no taxes even if they said to pay 90%...

That's incorrect.

Firstly, if we're talking about individual tax rate, the highest tax rate in the United States is 39%. Before 1981 prior to Reagan, the top Tax rate for the wealthy individuals was 70%. But things have been much better since the Reagan tax cuts in the 80s right? Let me know

federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com...

Now, if you're talking about the portion of taxes the wealthy pay in total, you're wrong again. The top 10% pay 68% in taxes
www.independentsentinel.com...

They also earn 75% of the wealth in the United States, so they're paying way less taxes compared to what they earn. This is in contrast to the middle and working classes:
www.quora.com... ir-share

So you're wrong. You pulled that 90% figure out of nothing, really. Just made it up.

A flat tax takes 15% right off the top, no deductions, no write-offs, just a straight 15%. I sure 15% would be on the high wage earner side and a lower flat tax would be for others.

The fact of the matter is, the flat tax will do little to benefit the middle and working classes. It will only serve to benefit the rich. Plain and simple. The wealthy will get their taxes chopped by more than half, and the middle and lower classes may see a rate deduction of what? afew percent? In the end what group is the flat tax going to benefit the most? It's the wealthy. The idea of the flat tax is aimed at benefiting them so that the wealth can, you guess it, trickle down. We've seen this work out just well in the 80's and the 2000's. Today we sit with record income inequality which started to skyrocket in the 80s. The wealthy gained $billions from Bush and Reagan tax cuts and in the end little was gained from it. But you want an economic system to benefit the rich further? You think this makes sense? Is the wealth going to trickle down this time?

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

Firstly, if we're talking about individual tax rate, the highest tax rate in the United States is 39%. Before 1981 prior to Reagan, the top Tax rate for the wealthy individuals was 70%. But things have been much better since the Reagan tax cuts in the 80s right? Let me know

There is a big difference between 39% after deductions and 15% of the gross with little or no deductions. What is 39% of zero, now what is 15% of 1 million gross....

So you're wrong. You pulled that 90% figure out of nothing, really. Just made it up.

You missed my point, even IF they were forced to pay 90% they would still pay low taxes with their deductions. Like 39% what is 90% of zero?

The fact of the matter is, the flat tax will do little to benefit the middle and working classes, and will only serve to benefit the rich. Plain and simple.

I don't think you understand that a flat tax does not need to be 39% since there are no deductions, no write-offs, no credits etc. to compete with. In the end the wealthy pay MORE and the upper middle/middle class pay less since they didn't have much deductions in the first place. The poor keep paying their low percent or nothing.... I can tell you I get raked every year with almost nothing to offset my 28%, so if you want to lower taxes for the middle and force the rich to pay more go flat tax...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yea the loop holes have been a hot button for a while, seems some people say they need to be there or else it is to expensive for companies to crate jobs in the states though.
/shrug.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There is a big difference between 39% after deductions and 15% of the gross with little or no deductions. What is 39% of zero, now what is 15% of 1 million gross....

So this is what you're saying. The wealthy will pay more in taxes under the flat tax rate than they do now? Will the wealthy not benefit the most from the flat?

Believe me I see what you're claiming here, the percentage is measured directly off the gross income, not the income after deductions. I just want to clarify what you've said above there before I go further into this. I mean you're claiming there'll be more tax revenue.

You missed my point, even IF they were forced to pay 90%

I wasn't missing any 'point'. You claimed flat out that the wealthiest paid 90% of all taxes. You were dead wrong. You clearly didn't bother to check this up.

In the end the wealthy pay MORE

No, the wealthy will be paying less. They'll get a 61% tax reduction from this, and even if we're going to apply this directly to their gross income, if this is the case, they'll still get the lionshare of the tax deduction. Plain and simple. This is why the tax rate is being proposed by Carson and others. It's this idea the wealthy pay too much already and that whatever benefits them will benefit the lower classes. There's the side part of all this that it'll make the tax system simpler, but the core benefit is to benefit the wealthy financially.

The poor keep paying their low percent or nothing....

There's no financial benefit to the poor under Carsons proposal, or under the flat tax in general. The hope is that the wealth will trickle down.

I can tell you I get raked every year with almost nothing to offset my 28%, so if you want to lower taxes for the middle and force the rich to pay more go flat tax.

There's no doubt the flat tax will lower costs to the middle classes. But the lionshare of the benefits will not be felt by them, by you. This is the reality of this all and in the long term, the wealthy will get richer, and the lower classes will remain stagnated. You want to cut taxes for the middle classes, I'm all for that, but there's more to fixing the economy than just taxes. Frankly redoing the tax system to benefit the wealthy again isn't going to be the answer. We did this during Reagan, we did this during Bush. It doesn't work.

The flat tax should have a bottom like 50k before you pay.