Gingrich: Hey, what about my flat-tax plan? Update: “Let’s bump plans”
posted at 12:50 pm on October 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
With all of the attention falling on Rick Perry and the rollout of his economic plan based on flat-tax reforms, many may have missed Newt Gingrich’s column in the Quad City Times that covers his own plan. Gingrich has discussed his plan on a number of occasions, including the debates, and it does sound … oddly familiar. In fact, it goes further than Perry’s plan does in reducing tax rates:
The key to a robust recovery in job creation is to simplify the tax code and maximize capital investment, which begins with eliminating the capital gains tax and the death tax, reducing the corporate tax to 12.5 percent, and 100 percent expensing of all new capital equipment purchases.
These tax changes will liberate private capital to move quickly to the most productive investments, thereby accelerating economic growth. This is the opposite of the failed model practiced by the Obama administration, which is bureaucracies steering taxpayer stimulus dollars to allegedly “shovel ready” jobs and politically connected firms such as Solyndra.
At the same time as we liberate capital to create new jobs, we must liberate taxpayers from the IRS tax code, which is why my jobs proposals also call for an optional flat tax of 15 or less%. All workers and businesses would have the freedom to choose each year to file their income taxes either under the new flat tax option with limited deductions or under the current U.S. income tax code. Anyone who strongly favors a deduction or credit under the federal government’s current complex income tax system would have the choice to keep filing that way.
This optional flat tax system will create a new personal deduction for every adult of $10,000 to $12,000 (double for married couple), which would be above the established poverty level at $40,000 to $48,000. The current $1,000 tax credit for each child age sixteen or younger would also apply, as would the current earned income tax credit (EITC).
Gingrich has been floating an optional flat tax for a couple of years, although it hasn’t had much traction as the former Speaker hasn’t gained much in polling. Here’s a brief thumbnail comparison between the two plans:
- Flat tax rate — Optional in both plans; Perry’s rate is 20%, Gingrich 15%
- Exemptions — Perry: $12,500 per filer/dependent; Gingrich: $10-12K per adult, $1,000 per child (under 16), plus the EITC
- Deductions – Both retain mortgage interest and charitable donations deductions
- Corporate tax rate — Perry: 20% flat; Gingrich: 12.5% flat
- Corporate deductions — Perry: Limited to R&D, 100% on capital investment; Gingrich: Limited to 100% on capital investment
It would seem that Gingrich’s plan would hit lower-income households a little sooner than Perry’s, but they would also have the option of staying with the current tax code (as they would with Perry’s plan, too). The corporate and personal tax rates would be significantly lower under Gingrich’s plan, and that may make it more difficult for Gingrich to claim revenue neutrality without a huge jump in economic activity. Both, however, share a remarkable amount of similarity.
So which is better? I’d argue that both are good; I like Gingrich’s rates overall, but Perry’s exemption model for personal income would be an easier sale to lower income families. Both beat the idea of adding a national sales tax. Apart from the merits of each, I think Gingrich will have an easier time selling and defending his plan in debates and on the stump than Perry, who has struggled to respond to challenges.
Let’s test the two with a poll for Hot Air readers. Whose plan is more attractive?
Update: Gingrich tweeted out a challenge to Perry:
@GovernorPerry If u r going to bump plans w/ my friend Herman, then you can bump plans w/ me. Let’s compare flat taxes
Gingrich does just that on his website. The biggest difference is in the treatment of capital gains. Gingrich exempts all of it from taxation; Perry only does so for long-term capital gains. Perry’s plan — according to Gingrich — still taxes short-term capital gains at 35% in some cases. I’m not sure whether it’s all that good of an idea to exempt short-term cap gains from taxation; it would accelerate the kind of short-term profit-taking that has created plenty of problems for long-term growth strategies in corporate boardrooms and reward speculation, but I don’t think a 35% rate on those gains is a good idea, either.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Newt.
Punchenko on October 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM
Newt.
Punchenko on October 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM
There are a number of people pushing Newt. He and Romney are the most competent up there, but he’s electability is in Palin territory. I love Newt, but I cannot live with four more years of Zero.
IR-MN on October 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Cain’s 9% sales tax won’t effect those that aren’t paying taxes anyway. Food stamp and WIC purchases are non-taxable.
Vince on October 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM
Random thoughts:
- “Newt does not allow deduction of state and local taxes, Perry does. Advantage Newt.” Voters in high tax states will not support loss of their state tax deduction.
- the Dems will demagogue any flat tax plan as being a cold blooded attack on the poor and disenfranchised. Why? Because the 47% of income earners who don’t currently pay any income tax may have to start paying federal income taxes.
- Guarantee that Obama’s team will come up with a sequence of leading comments for Obama to use in a debate with Cain that will literally make Cain take a “deer in the headlights” stance or blurt out a undeniable flip-flop tight on stage.
- Cain’s readiness to swap every Gitmo prisoner for a single US soldier is appalling and has undercut any credibility on defense matters.
- I’m for Newt, but fear Obama’s henchmen will run 9 months of highly emotionally charged personal attacks on Gingrich that will dissuade too many independents and women from supporting him. Our media has also made it clear that smoking dope, doing crack, hanging out with Marxists, bringing the nation’s economy and our future to their knees are all excusable – turning on a cancer stricken wife is not.
in_awe on October 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM
Didn’t you just contradict yourself?
Vince on October 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Then Obama leaves hinself wide open for personal attacks as well.
Vince on October 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM
Newt, Perry and Cain need to schedule a weekender on talking over their plans and having just one staff member that helped them draft it there to help on the numbers.
Put them around a table with their staff members consulting and have them start kicking around what is good and bad about each other’s plans and start proposing alternatives.
If these three are running for President they should be able to:
1) Talk
2) Listen
3) Think
4) Get some analysis done on the fly to help make better policy
If they all have the same objective and just different means to approach it, then they should be able to hash out a common and agreed-upon set of policies that they are all comfortable with to run on. Yes it won’t be that of any individual and that is a GOOD THING as a President must run a government and then craft decisions from just such meetings.
Break the ‘debate’ mold of this asinine system and put something new on the table.
You have to be able to set yourself aside as President as well as lead: that is required, not optional. How you lead is one thing, but learning to listen, learn and come to a consensus is something else again. If you can reason based on facts and propose viable alternatives in such an arena, then you are demonstrating some chops to be able to do the job. And letting the other candidates know that the game is being upped to a new level at the same time.
ajacksonian on October 25, 2011 at 3:03 PM
If I understand Cain’s deductions correctly, they’re far lower than Perry’s or Gingrich’s. That would bring more people into a lower base, which would make a hike just a bit harder to ram through.
For the record, where I depart with Cain is the sales tax. It can’t be allowed to fly.
Steve Eggleston on October 25, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Gingrich’s plan won’t raise enough money. With equal amounts of spending cuts, Perry’s plan is more likely to be able to pay down debt. I’d actualy prefer something a bit different from either, but if those 2 are my only choices, I have to go with Perry. Would I like to pay less? Sure, but I don’t think that is realistic.
AnotherOpinion on October 25, 2011 at 3:06 PM
Newt can win it. He’s not tied down by Bush, he isn’t Obama, he knows politics, and he can talk. He is by far the smartest guy in the room and he has always been a bare-knuckle partisan conservative brawler. We could use someone with vision who has a track record of getting real change done. Newt’s my guy.
Punchenko on October 25, 2011 at 3:09 PM
I’m not really crazy about having a new flat tax and leaving the old tax code in place as an option. BUT, I believe Perry and Newt are offering the option for several reasons:
(1) The accountant / lawyer lobby. If they just offered a flat tax, these groups would scream bloody murder. It would probably make the unemployment situation even worse. Heck, my CPA has 5 employees. Could you imagine small offices like this closing all over the country?
(2) The IRS has 100,000 employees. How many would they need to keep around for a flat tax? Once again you run into a problem of creating higher unemployment.
(3) By leaving in the option, both the very rich and the very poor can be comfortable that they won’t pay any more than they have in the past. While I believe this reason sucks, it is one way to get the flat tax passed.
I’d hope that once elected, they would pass a flat tax (along with massive spending cuts), while phasing out the current tax system over 5 or 10 years. That way you don’t have a shock to the system and the resistance to the new flat tax system would wane over time.
ReaganWasRight on October 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM
My preference is the Gingrich plan, however Cain retains my vote (for now) as the superior candidate. He has less baggage (if he will stop accumulating), will better connect with a wide swath of electorate, and presents as a real game changer able to roll back liberalism in general, Obamism in particular. No alternative presents so much upside potential.
exdeadhead on October 25, 2011 at 3:40 PM
I think Newt is the only one with enough skill and knowledge to actually roll back Obamacare. It’s tentacles are already so entrenched, it’s going to be hard. He will know how.
stenwin77 on October 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM
That may be but you bring up two excellent points by means of your post…First, 100% we must update the tax code to make it simplier and make sure ALL employed people “have skin in the game”. Second that even when we fix the tax code that will fall short…so even more important is cutting the cost (synomonous with size) of government, yeah even in draconian fashion!
RedLizard64 on October 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Not that I’ll ever support him because of… well, everything else, but Ron Paul’s plan is the best.
Red Cloud on October 25, 2011 at 4:22 PM
I’d take any three in the following order: Cain, Perry then Newt.
Actually, Perry saves more money than Newt’s based on deductions, primarily due to each dependent is worth $12.5K compared to Newt’s $1K.
However, What I really want to see from any of the three that the reform simultaneously seek to accomplish 4 things:
1) The poor have skin in the game, even if it’s a token net 1%
2) All employer bennies are counted as personal income. This way, employers will abandon insurance etc — my trojan horse, if you will, to make insurance portable across state lines and to dis-incet folks from using insurance willy-nilly.
3) Stop the employer contribution to FICA. This to be fully put on the wage earner.
4) Stop automatic tax withholding. Everyone must come up with their own plan for setting aside money so as to pay taxes out of pocket.
All of the above will force folks to think twice about what politicians are promising to do with the money they do get from us for spending. Much, much, much harder to hike taxes when you have to go to the taxpayer and ask for more. We see this happening all the time with local govts getting shot down on tax hikes when the perceived outcome doesn’t benefit the taxpayer enough to consent to the hike.
AH_C on October 25, 2011 at 4:26 PM
Excellent idea. Oboobi will have nothing to trump that.
AH_C on October 25, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Here’s a challenge, assuming it hasn’t already been done yet: someone who actually understands taxes (and the three proposed plans), team up with someone who can put together an easy web program. Make something where people can input roughly what their current income is and what they’re paying in taxes, and the output is a rough estimate of what they’d pay under each plan versus the current tax code.
Jinxed on October 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM
I’m not crazy about Cain’s different levels of taxation for empowerment zones. Like the EITC, this smacks of two Americas of taxation.
onlineanalyst on October 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM
I love the way you think.
Let’s raise the level of discussion and debates beyond DWTS level.
onlineanalyst on October 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM
Math fun with O: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281276/math-fun-president-obama-peter-kirsanow
Surely any one of our contenders could shoot holes in O’s math skills.
onlineanalyst on October 25, 2011 at 5:04 PM
Not even a question. Ron Paul’s plan is the best. Our biggest (and most immediate) problem is spending. Everyone is afraid to delve into specifics and push the “balanced budget” out to 10 years or so, i.e. it’ll never happen. Ron is serious. These other clowns are not.
iamse7en on October 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM
Our little poll has been Spammed by Paulbots!!!!
RedLizard64 on October 25, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Are YOU our little spammer?
RedLizard64 on October 25, 2011 at 6:19 PM
I like Newt, too. I believe in this election cycle, with the country in the shape it is in, his “baggage” is insignificant.
That said, I think Newt’s believes his professorial approach to the issues is expected from him at every turn.
It’s not.
He needs to master the art of common wit.
Saltysam on October 25, 2011 at 7:36 PM
Newt’sNewtSaltysam on October 25, 2011 at 7:37 PM
Someone above is actually -worried- about laying off IRS employees because of a flat tax proposal?!?!??!??!…..
I don’t think there is a single citizen voting who would give a rats hairy a$$ about it.
exsanguine on October 25, 2011 at 11:53 PM
Is Newts payback to his political base still included in the plan? (The absurd ethanol subsidies he supports.)
NORUK on October 26, 2011 at 9:37 AM
Tsk. Newt. He’s so 90s.He probably has Tori Amos on his…DiscMan. Give it up. The base no like.
curved space on October 26, 2011 at 5:07 PM
I’m not a Paul-iac, but I voted (above) for his plan. His cuts are real and absolutely necessary if the Republic is to be saved.
Sheerq on October 26, 2011 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2