Under his plan, your taxes will go UP. (Unless you are making several hundred thousand a year)

Granted, your actual rate may or may not go down. the actual numbers of his plan are very different (You mentioned the WSJ article – that was an opinion piece and if you read it again, it’s full of a lot of praise for his plan – and not a single number is actually quoted about what it will do) Your health insurance (even the part paid by your employer, if that’s the case) will be taxed. Social Security for the elderly will be taxed. The earned income credit for working poor families will be eliminated. The mortgage interest credit will be eliminated (which seems like a great plan in light of the number of people already struggling to pay mortgages and the high rate of default.) Education and child care payments will be taxed. Veterans and disability will be taxed.

The people who are already struggling will be taxed. There is no way that’s not a plan that will cause even more poverty, more of an economic crisis because people who are struggling have less money to buy the goods and services that corporations want us to buy. The math just doesn’t work.

Someone making 20,000 a year is going to have their taxes go up over 1,000 a year.

The average middle class family is going to have their taxes go up around 2,000.

Of course, he’s not raising everybody’s taxes. The wealthiest .1% are going to have their taxes reduced by about 500,000.

“According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, on the whole, middle-class families would be forced to pay $1,890 in higher taxes under the no-tax expenditure plan compared to what they pay now. They would even pay $738 more than what they would pay if all the Bush tax cuts expired. Meanwhile, because they benefit the most from the lower rates, the richest 1 percent would get a $7,000 tax cut under the no-tax expenditure plan compared to letting the Bush tax cuts expire.”

Johanna already mentioned that retirement accounts are not subject to capital gains tax.

Also, there’s some doubt as to whether his plan WOULD make GE pay more taxes. Because it *doesn’t* restructure the tax code to where multinational companies are forced to pay more. The only thing it does is lower their overall rate, providing them with some incentive to bring money back – but depending on where those funds ‘are’ they may or may not do so. There’s an article here that explains it:

ablogofrivals.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/reaction-to-jon-huntsmans-jobs-plan-tax-reform-section/

(It’s a very neutral article, from somebody who wants to like Huntsman’s plan)

I try to get my information from many sources, major media, and independent sources. I read opinion blogs from both sides, and have really found myself moderating in my political opinion. I’m still socially very liberal, but becoming much more fiscally conservative. At times, those two things will be at odds, but I’m trying to work that out in my mind.

The WSJ used to be a sound financial publication with a conservative bent. It has, especially in the last 5 years, moved to being a general publication that panders to its target audience of extremely wealthy, middle-age to older Americans who prefer to be insulated from the reality of American economics and hardship. You can see this especially in the editorials, where I presume you read the praise for the Huntsman plan.

While the WSJ used to be a reliable, nuanced publication that offered a solid alternate perspective to liberal journals, it is, unfortunately, no longer. Sad to say.

The investment tables are still pretty good though, as are the wine recommendations ;-)

You might consider the Economist (magazine) as a source. I have not found a newspaper to fill the void of the old WSJ.

Anyway, to elaborate on one of the points Tracy made earlier: The capital gains and dividend tax rates have absolutely no effect on your retirement portfolio, provided your retirement portfolio is in retirement accounts (such as 401(k)s and IRAs). Withdrawals from pre-tax accounts (regular 401(k), traditional IRA) are taxed as ordinary income, and withdrawals from Roth accounts aren’t taxed at all. At no point do you pay capital gains or dividend taxes on the money in either of those types of accounts.

Meh, what do I know.

That’s just – not true. It really isn’t. Every single statement you said is just – not true. I don’t have the time to refute them in detail now, I’m about to run to a dinner party but …

1) Huntsman’s plan will increase the effective corporate tax by 7% by eliminating loopholes, incentives and breaks

No, it won’t.

2) As for eliminating capital gains tax, I’m fine with that. It helps me and my retirement portfolio

No, it won’t.

3) And does it really matter if the rich are 15% richer? Will that affect your life in any meaningful way? I’m not sure it will.

It won’t affect my life in a meaningful way if the rich are 15% richer. It WILL affect my life in a meaningful way if the rich don’t pay taxes on their income (and under his plan they, to all intents and purposes, don’t – seriously READ about it)

4)What I do know is that if we continue to increase taxes, eventually we’re going to run out of things to tax. Cuts need to be made

Actually, in order for revenue to increase, we need to create JOBS. Also, I don’t see why you’re saying ‘continue to increase taxes’ – if you look at the history, we are currently at the lowest taxation rate since taxation was implemented! We’ve been steadily decreasing taxes (and primarily the capital gains tax you like so much) and that is WHY, in large part, we’ve gone from surplus to deficit

5) If you want to be fair, implement a flat tax

That’s the antithesis of fair

Seriously, you’ve admitted you haven’t done a lot of research on taxation and the implications of different kinds of taxes – so … do the research.

Use it to lower overall tax rates for the poor, middle, and even upper-middle classes – fine. Spend it on programs to benefit the poor, middle, and upper-middle classes – fine. Reduce the deficit or pay down the debt – probably fine. Use it to reduce the highest tax rates (the main effect of which is giving away huge amounts of money to the very, very rich) – not fine.

So many of these tax plans take the same basic form: Throw some tiny bone to the regular people (either in terms of money, simplicity, “fairness,” or the satisfaction that some other guy is getting screwed over worse than you are) to try to distract people from the fact that you’re giving hundred-thousand-dollar breaks to people who already make tens of millions of dollars.

To make your laundry soap at home, you’re still going to need to pay a heavy tax on borax and washing soda and all, so it won’t help that much.
But if you buy most things second-hand, you’ll let the first-timers pay the tax and skip it entirely. I suspect that’s the bigger draw for Trent.

Trying to level the playing field helps those who are at a disadvantage, and hurts those who have the advantage. Of course, those with the advantage have the means to perpetuate the status quo.

I should know. I’m a tax accountant. :D

Gosh, I hadn’t thought of that! No wonder it makes sense to Trent!