October 19, 2011 2:38 PM

Perry calls for flat tax to replace income tax

By
Rebecca Kaplan
Topics
Economy ,
Campaign 2012

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry delivers a keynote address during the Western Republican Leadership Conference, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011, in Las Vegas.

(Credit: Isaac Brekken)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is calling for replacing the federal income tax with a flat tax, a conservative idea condemned by liberals as a regressive burden on lower- and middle-income taxpayers.

The Republican presidential hopeful previewed his economic plan for the country at the Western Republican Leadership Conference in Las Vegas, but offered few details.

He said he would unveil a proposal next week calling for creation of a flat tax, which would replace the present system of graduated tax rates based on income with a single rate for all taxpayers regardless of income.

Perry told an audience of about 150 Republicans that his plan would also include a ban on congressional earmarks, passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, spending cuts and entitlement reform. He plans to unveil details in a speech Tuesday in South Carolina.

"A change election requires a new direction, and not more of the same," Perry said. "And I come by my conservatism very authentically, not by convenience. I offer the American people a new direction. My economic plan is rooted in what has worked in my home state."

He said he would scrap "the current 3 million words of the American tax code" and replace it with "something simple: a flat tax."

"I want to make the tax code so simple that even (Treasury Secretary) Timothy Geithner can file his taxes on time," Perry said.

One of Perry's main rivals for the Republican nomination, pizza executive Herman Cain, has also called for a flat income tax, which he has said would be a rate of 9 percent. Perry did not stipulate a rate in his speech on Wednesday.

Perry said he will also work to pass a balanced budget amendment, another long-standing conservative idea that has lacked sufficient support to pass in Congress. "I will barnstorm this country from Day One, going to all 50 states if that's required, to generate the support for a balanced budget amendment, that will demand (that) the necessary changes will be placed in our Constitution," he said.

Earmarks, the special provisions for certain districts and states tucked into appropriations bills, have been greatly reduced in recent years after they became the object of public scorn as wasteful spending. Perry said, "My plan is to end earmarks for good. It's time to bring some tough medicine to Washington."


  • Rebecca Kaplan

    Rebecca Kaplan is covering the Rick Perry campaign for CBS News and National Journal.

Add a Comment See all 382 Comments
by kuching88 October 20, 2011 11:09 AM EDT
Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan would refuse to recognize the current crop of intellectually disadvantaged religious nuts as Republicans.

REPUBLICANS have become so RADICALIZED as to be UN-AMERICAN.

It is amazing how completely cultists, Confederates, Holy Rollers and Tea Party Twits have seized and dominate The Republican Party to the exclusion of the few remaining Republicans capable of thought.

Do evilgelicals hope to raise The Confederacy from the dead by nominating the secessionist, Perry?
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-3 October 20, 2011 10:54 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
And everyone of these GOP presidential candidates agree that they needs to be NO MORE BAILOUTS and are all now saying that TARP was a bad idea to begin with.







I haven't heard any of them make those claims, but ALL of them have most definitely said that they would repeal the Dodd-Frank legislation that would prevent our economy from being destroyed by Wall Street and the biggest banks again!!

They don't care about America - they care about ideology ONLY!!
Reply to this comment
by arthanyel October 20, 2011 11:10 AM EDT
starving: I normally agree with you, but I hate to tell you that Dodd-Frank wouldn't do anything of the sort. It does propose many new regulations, but it does not address any of the primary reasons for the meltdown or contain any measures to prevent a reoccurance. It does contain a number of quesitonable areas of regulaiton that will likely only serve to make banks less profitable, with no actual benefit to consumers.

So it might be better than nothing, but it is nowhere near enough and contains a lot of bad legislation. Of course Republicans are blocking ANY increased regulation so it's not going to be implemented.

What we really need is to scrap Dodd-Frank and create a new financial regulaiton package that is better constructed, addresses the right issues, and gets implemented - including the re-implementation of the Glass-Stegall Act.
by pahgre October 20, 2011 10:54 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:33 AM EDT
"once again, tax cut increased federal revenues.."
===================================================



There's just no common sense to your delusional ranting about tax cuts with BORROWED MONEY costing much more than the original tax cut due to interest on the debt. Sorry, but federal revenue is well-below the post-WWII average of 18.5% of GDP, at a mere 14% of GDP, and NEVER even attained the post-WWII average since the Clinton era! NEVER!!

Seems that economics and mathematics are not your strong suit, but the fox/rush propaganda and political rhetoric certainly is!



S&P Does Not Believe The Bush Tax Cuts Will Get Lifted In 2012

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-05/politics/30032735_1_tax-cuts-payroll-tax-unemployment-insurance-extension#ixzz1bKljzppN
Reply to this comment
by pahgre October 20, 2011 10:57 AM EDT
The FACTS seem to pass right through conservitard's empty heads, since the moronic bush tax cuts created very few jobs, and have cost us trillions in lost revenue over the past LOST DECADE!
by arthanyel October 20, 2011 11:13 AM EDT
Cutting taxes doesn't raise revenues. It is mathematically impossible. The argument that cutting taxes generates an expanded economy and therefore more revenues (smaller slice of a bigger pie) is called "Supply Side Economics" and has been discredited by every non-partisan economist - and there is no evidence it has ever worked. There MAY be SOME short term stimulation of the economy by cutting taxes on the middle class and poor (because they actually spend the money) but it is short lived.

Bush's tax cuts only appeared to have increased revenues because of the (fake) housing bubble. All of those gains were wiped away in the crash.
by skyk1 October 20, 2011 10:53 AM EDT
I truly hope the Tea Party and the Southern Fascist get their way.. I sincerely hope they put this dead from the neck up Cracker up against the President! LMAO Talk about a NO WIN situation!
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-3 October 20, 2011 10:52 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:39 AM EDT
The Federal Reserve has much more power than you think.

Several of the large banks did not want any money/bailouts, they were forced by the FED to except it.

The proof is now in that the Feds forced banks to take the bailout money - even healthy banks which did not need the money.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/649215-proof-feds-forced-healthy-banks-take.html

If they were in such bad shape, why did most banks pay back the money within the first year?







You've posted a link to a "forum".

Probably to your own post, no less.
Reply to this comment
by Forty-Four October 20, 2011 10:51 AM EDT
Flat tax? People who have no jobs can't pay taxes because they have no income as it is. Now they will likely be arrested for not being able to pay because they have no job.
Reply to this comment
by skyk1 October 20, 2011 10:54 AM EDT
Forty-Four, Now THAT sounds like a Southern Conservative way of looking at things. LOL
by Forty-Four October 20, 2011 11:14 AM EDT
Funny part is I am not from the south. Farthest south I have been in Sandusky, Ohio
by starving1968-3 October 20, 2011 10:48 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:40 AM EDT
Better to have a job than no job at all.







Have you tried to put food on your kids table, and clothes on their backs, while earning minimum wage?

I would guess not, since you're apparently still living in mommy's basement.
Reply to this comment
by pahgre October 20, 2011 10:44 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:27 AM EDT
"Do you get to make the definitions up all by yourself?"
===========================================================



NO, but it seems you do, and then your butt buddy mortimer makes his usual 5th grader attacks without adding anything to the conversation.

A regressive tax forces the poor to pay the same or even a greater proportion of their income in taxes than the rich.
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-3 October 20, 2011 10:41 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:33 AM EDT
once again, tax cut increased federal revenues after the tax cuts were put into place, it happens every time.







So then why did the national budget turn from a "projected surplus" to a MASSIVE "projected deficit", when the legislation was passed in 2001?

Cutting YOUR PAY doesn't result in a "larger paycheck", dummy.
Reply to this comment
by pahgre October 20, 2011 10:32 AM EDT
Will Taxpayers End Up Bailing Out Bank of America -- Again?

Three years after taxpayers rescued some of the biggest U.S. lenders, regulators are grappling with how to protect FDIC-insured bank accounts from risks generated by investment-banking operations.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/will-taxpayers-end-up-bailing-out-bank-of-america-8212-again/16680?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.9

-----

And everyone of these GOP presidential candidates -- especially preacher perry -- wants to increase DEREGULATION like he Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, that gave us the Wild West mentality on Wall Street and eventually the bush/cheney Great Recession!
Reply to this comment
by pahgre October 20, 2011 10:36 AM EDT
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:20 AM EDT
"You might want to educate yourself on why Bank of America is in trouble."
====================================================================



I already know why, but it appears to be you that is uneducated!

It was years of risks generated by investment-banking operations, like derivatives and credit/default swaps allowed by the 1999 GOP legislation of more DEREGULATION!
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
And everyone of these GOP presidential candidates agree that they needs to be NO MORE BAILOUTS and are all now saying that TARP was a bad idea to begin with.
See all 4 Replies
See all 382 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook