I'll admit, I didn't realize Cruz was pushing a "Flat Tax"

[MH1]

Just caught that on MTP just now.

I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention to policy positions, what with all the spectacle, but DAMN. Flat Tax? How did I not know this?

Yes Trump could destroy this country but I think Cruz would be even worse.

Yikes.

[idea5]

1. He's also a theocrat...

Which seems to get fairly minimal attention in the media.

[FLPanhandle]

2. Trump gets all the attention

But Cruz is the real danger.

[arcane1]

3. Cruz is the only one who seems to actually want the job. And thats why he's the worst. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Go read his site

it can be... ahem illuminating.

Both Trump and Cruz will be bad for the country, disastrous even, just for different reasons.

[oberliner]

5. He says it in every stump speech

He also wants to abolish the IRS and have people do their taxes on a postcard.

[MH1]

6. That's it. I haven't listened to a single speech by any of these yahoos

for more than about 30 seconds. That's all I can take.

In this case I had just turned on the TV and MTP was on. Cruz was talking about what a "demagogue" Obama is. ( ). Chuck Todd asked him if Obama was worse than Trump. Cruz danced around that (actually said they were equivalent. yeah right.) then Chuck asked how a Cruz presidency would help the country, or something to that effect. I had my finger on the channel button but listened long enough to hear the flat tax thing.

It occurs to me that more than 90% of what is discussed in the media about the campaigns is the spectacle, NOT anything to do with actual policy positions.

[oberliner]

7. You are right about the spectacle

For one thing, Trump doesn't have any actual policy positions.

Say what you want about Ted Cruz, but at least he has ideas that he can articulate (even though I vehemently disagree with all of them).

[HughBeaumont]

8. Apparently he's a VAT fan.

You know, because that's not at all bad or anything . . .

It's not a FairTax, it's a Valued Added Tax, which is different...because it sounds different.[64]

Translation: what Ted is actually proposing is a European-style National Sales Tax. He won't admit it, because saying "Europe" would cause parts of his voters to sizzle and fall off. (It's also known as a "Consumption Tax", which Americans like even less.) Still too opaque? Essentially he is calling for a 19% percent federal sales tax that would apply to all purchases of goods and services made in the U.S. Many of the taxes you pay in the US for things are already built into the price or services so you don't see them on a paper receipt. So poor and middle class pay the same or more. Upper 20% pay the same, but no more gift and estate tax for super wealthy. He's also proposing cutting taxes to 0 for everyone making under 36k[65] so everyone's savings should increase. Doesn't mean there are more jobs, doesn't mean income inequality goes away.

Putting aside the feasibility of ramming this tax plan through Congress, will it work? Conservatives hate this idea,[66][67][68] so don't scroll down the page just yet. However, there are a few baked-in problems with the VAT: Cruz argues that his plan is a tax on businesses, not on consumers. Economists argue that it's a distinction without a difference. If you tax businesses, they’re going to pass those costs onto the workers and consumers. Pundits who claim otherwise are probably being a bit naive. In theory, it would unfairly burden lower and lower middle class families, since 1) A greater portion of their income goes to consumption because there are fixed costs they can not escape, e.g. gasoline, and 2) upper-middle and upper class taxpayers can use business entities to hide their consumption (like they already do now).

Cruz's plan is dangerous for the way it handles corporate taxation more than anything.[69]

[MH1]

9. Thanks for the link and the clarification.

He definitely said "flat tax" on MTP today. But it's not like his potential voters will be splitting hairs over the finer points of economic terminology or anything.

Either way, it's a scary proposition. Not likely to get through Congress but just the idea that the guy sitting in the Oval Office would be pushing hard for that, gives me the heebie-jeebies. (Okay there's a bunch of other stuff too ... in fact it's hard to think of anything about any of these yahoos that DOESN'T give me the heebie-jeebies. Sigh.)

[Generic Brad]

10. He is Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, and Pat Robertson rolled into one

You would think an amalgamation of those three personalities would result in something likable, but nooo.