Republican Candidates Come up With Brand-Old Idea.

Sorry Abraham Lincoln, But they are calling your Flat Tax Plan Theirs'

Rick Perry joins flat tax parade – a hot idea fresh from the 1860s

Rick Perry follows Herman Cain in proposing a flat tax. Ron Paul has endorsed the idea before, too. But the hot new idea among GOP presidential candidates is as old as the Civil War.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2011/1025/Rick-Perry-joins-flat-tax-parade-a-hot-idea-fresh-from-the-1860s

American Civil War (1861–65) 

 

George S. Boutwell was

the first Commissioner of Internal Revenue under President Abraham Lincoln.

In July 1862, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses (see Revenue Act of 1862). The position of Commissioner exists today as the head of the Internal Revenue Service.

The Revenue Act of 1862 was passed as an emergency and temporary war-time tax. It copied a relatively new British system of income taxation, instead of trade and property taxation. The first income tax was passed in 1861:
 The initial rate was 3% on income over $800, which exempted most wage-earners.
 In 1862 the rate was 3% on income between $600 and $10,000, and 5% on income over $10,000.
 In 1864 the rate was 5% on income between $600 and $5,000; 7.5% on income $5,000–$10,000; and 10% on income $10,000 and above.

By the end of the war, 10% of Union households had paid some form of income tax, and the Union raised 21% of its war revenue through income taxes.[2]

What Is a Flat Tax?

Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the "equal justice under law" principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation's wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax

the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be $20,000 per adult and $7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making $54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making $74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.20 × (74,000 − 54,000) = $4,000, as under a flat tax with deductions. But families of four earning less than $54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). For example, if it earned $34,000 a year, it would receive a check for $4,000. The NIT is intended to replace not just the US A's income tax, but also many benefits low income American households receive, such as food stamps and Medicaid. The NIT is designed to avoid the welfare trap—effective high marginal tax rates arising from the rules reducing benefits as market income rises. An objection to the NIT is that it is welfare without a work requirement. Those who would owe negative tax would be receiving a form of welfare without having to make an effort to obtain employment. Another objection is that the NIT subsidizes industries employing low cost labor, but this objection can also be made against current systems of benefits for the working poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

In the United States, according to the government Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 6.4 million working poor in 2000;[4] by 2003 the number had grown.[5] In 2004, Business Week suggested that "the share of the workforce earning subpoverty pay [is] 24% [in 2003]".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor

A flat tax would be fair across the board and help the American economy, However,

the Republican will shoot it down.

What is ironic about Rick Perry, and the other republican presidential candidates plan, for a Flat Tax, Cut Spending, and simulate growth.

I will let you figure how we are going to accomplish this.

Well like every election before, American's will hear the rhetorical BS from wealthy "upper-class" politicians that tell us how much they care for the "middle-Class" and how important the "middle-class" are.They tell us how much they are going to do for them. Well can you think of anything that the "upper-class" politicians we put in office in the last 30 years has done for us.The "upper-class" politicians care less for the "middle-class," they have been proving it for over 30 years. What is sad is that the "middle-class" is 72" of our population, and they will put another "upper-class" politician full of hot air and empty promises.

 You should be putting a person like me, from the "middle-class" in as your president, http://www.charlesforpresident.com

But CNN and Media will not show "middle-class" one of their own for fear one of us could get in the White House and that would worry the Upper-class and wealthy that have controlled and kept the middle-class and "poor-class" right where they want us. I will predict what will happen after you put in another wealthy "upper-class" politicians.

A flat tax would be fair across the board and help the American economy, However, Republicans will shoot it down. The best quote, I found why the Republican would stop a flat tax was said by, James Moore: http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=Nemr320waa

"I think a lot of them are sheep in wolf's clothing. A flat tax would be good for the People, so in essence it would be bad for the Status Quo. Politician are a part of the Status Quo and don't want to see it disrupted. Plus, they need you to keep paying for their social programs and warmongering... Depending on which side you look at."

As to Cut spending, That will mean only programs that benefit all classes below the "upper-class" and elite. The "upper-politicians are famous for doing that. Also Republican are pro-war increasing Military budgets and Foreign involvement.

Congress will keep taking billions in ear marks.Will keep allowing breaks for the wealthy and corporation. They will let outsourcing of American jobs and manufacturing continue as well as off-shore panting. Unless you put some "middle-class"people in congress.

America is $14 billion in debt, Candidates want to lower taxing, so that means less money for us to pay down our debt or put money into the economy to create jobs. Also they will continue to give billions to foreign countries like all the Muslim nations that hate us and call us infidel.

　

The Conclusion is if you put in "upper-class" politicians into congress or the oval office, They will cut medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and other human services for the poor and the "middle-class," They will cut, programs that the :upper-class" does not need.