Rand Paul: "Americans See The Rot In The System...And Want It To End!"

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Rand Paul, originally posted at The Wall Street Journal,

Some of my fellow Republican candidates for the presidency have proposed plans to fix the tax system. These proposals are a step in the right direction, but the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.

So, I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”

President Obama talks about “middle-class economics,” but his redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families. Here’s what I propose for the middle class: The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years.

Here’s why we have to start over with the tax code. From 2001 until 2010, there were at least 4,430 changes to tax laws—an average of one “fix” a day—always promising more fairness, more simplicity or more growth stimulants. And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.

Polls show that “fairness” is a top goal for Americans in our tax system. I envision a traditionally All-American solution: Everyone plays by the same rules. This means no one of privilege, wealth or with an arsenal of lobbyists can game the system to pay a lower rate than working Americans.

Most important, a smart tax system must turbocharge the economy and pull America out of the slow-growth rut of the past decade. We are already at least $2 trillion behind where we should be with a normal recovery; the growth gap widens every month. Even Mr. Obama’s economic advisers tell him that the U.S. corporate tax code, which has the highest rates in the world (35%), is an economic drag. When an iconic American company like Burger King wants to renounce its citizenship for Canada because that country’s tax rates are so much lower, there’s a fundamental problem.

Another increasingly obvious danger of our current tax code is the empowerment of a rogue agency, the IRS, to examine the most private financial and lifestyle information of every American citizen. We now know that the IRS, through political hacks like former IRS official Lois Lerner, routinely abused its auditing power to build an enemies list and harass anyone who might be adversarial to President Obama’s policies. A convoluted tax code enables these corrupt tactics.

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.

I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

The challenge to this plan will be to overcome special-interest groups in Washington who will muster all of their political muscle to save corporate welfare. That’s what happened to my friend Steve Forbes when he ran for president in 1996 on the idea of the flat tax. Though the flat tax was surprisingly popular with voters for its simplicity and its capacity to boost the economy, crony capitalists and lobbyists exploded his noble crusade.

Today, the American people see the rot in the system that is degrading our economy day after day and want it to end. That is exactly what the Fair and Flat Tax will do through a plan that’s the boldest restoration of fairness to American taxpayers in over a century.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wee-weed up's picture

Like a fish, this rot starts at the head...

The slimy Obozo-fish.

James_Cole's picture


I like Rand, and vs. hillary he’d be better for sure.. but this plan is more of the same stupid bullshit that’s bad enough on its own but by the time implemented would be 10x worse and very not-flat. 

more than 70,000 pages

This is an insane exaggeration, it is closer to a few thousand pages in reality. US has 330m+ people & is the largest (2nd?) economy in the world - of course the tax code will be complex. 


This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years.

As if, that’ll go straight to profits and /or stock buybacks. Employees aren’t hired on a tax basis, they are hired on a demand basis. 

In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer 

lol, real great experts.. that tax cut in the 80s worked well, just ask stockman in his article from earlier

would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. 

A lovely gift to finance!

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit?

> yes < Hence the tax increase in the 80s immediately following Laffers tax cuts, what figure did stockman cite.. 350B? 

Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

10% total from now, compound….per year? 10% could either be hardly anything, or A LOT..  

Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

If people are paying below 14.5% for 2014 they be doing it illegally..


Robot Traders Mom's picture

"Any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States"


-Rand Paul


That's all I needed to hear to realize he's no different than anyone else. 

LetThemEatRand's picture

I strongly dislike him because I see him as a shill of large corporations (the whole Isreal thing is part of his support of MIC), but I would vote for him if I thought (I don't) that he would implement this tax plan if elected. 

MonetaryApostate's picture

You can't fix the problem(s) with politicians GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!!!!

Richard Chesler's picture

Not a single mention of jew banksters.

Another paid-for miserable fucking muppet!

In which side would you prefer to read your teleprompter Mr Rand?



Kobe Beef's picture

One man's rot, is another man's rent.

I'd like to believe an American politician could enact reforms to benefit the American people. But in my entire life I've never seen it. So I have to assume that the rent-seeking will never end.

greenskeeper carl's picture

Rand is doing some more pandering. he has gone back on every single thing he has ever said that made him different from the rest of the republican field. He is not his father, and is nothing more than a garden variety republican(full of shit). If you are still wanting to believe in him, just remember, he voted FOR that stupid USA freedom act bullshit.

usednabused's picture

Amen to that. Rand Paul is just another bag-o-wind. And also a worthless fucking parasite. I am not sure how I got on his email list as I keep getting drool and drivel from his campaign every day. But there won't be a fucking nickle for him or any other liar.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

"The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit?

> yes < Hence the tax increase in the 80s immediately following Laffers tax cuts, what figure did stockman cite.. 350B?"


We've already blown a hole in the budget.  Obama has accumulated more debt than ALL of the presidents before him, COMBINED!!  There are loopholes up the ass for the ultra-wealthy.  Why do you think Warren Buffet said he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary?  You might not like Rand for one reason or another, but this sort of tax plan should be supported by everyone---especially here on ZH.  The current tax code is nothing more than a vote buying scheme / jobz program for the IRS and every accountant who prepares taxes.  Like LTER said above, I'd vote for Rand based on this one item alone, if he could pull it off.


LibertarianMenace's picture

"Under every stone lurks a politician" - Aristophanes, circa 400 B.C.


So this tragicomedy has been going on a long time, but good on yer anyway, Monetary, for pointing out the obvious. Perhaps both Rand and the Pope could benefit from a reading of Aristophanes.


We only stand a chance with far fewer pols, not more with "new" ideas. You see, Rand, like the pope apparently, thinks that the state just needs to be a little more efficient in order (in Rand's case) to solve .guv's chronic revenue problem. But our good Rand nowhere attacks the income tax as, ahem, UNCONSTITUTIONAL! That's the issue, not that the current mode of state extortion is inefficient.

Ace Ventura's picture

BINGO. Taxing of income is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Given that 'income'....in the manner in which we define it at the normal-Joe level.....is an exchange of LABOR for MONEY. Thus, we are being illegally taxed on our LABOR. The fact that Rand can't attack this the way his father did says it all. And of course, being a political reptile, he conveniently neglected the 8,000 ton titanosaur in the room regarding his 'plan'.

That is....who here, with a shred of a functioning brain cell remaining....doubts for one single nano-second....that 14.5% wouldn't soon be 15.5%.....17.8%.....18.6%.......20.3%.....25.5%.....etc.....within a few stinkin' years?

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Further it is 100% nothing more than a system through which the global elite exercise control over the masses in a fiat world. Otherwise....why not make the tax rate 0% on everything and just 'pay' for stuff (infrastructure, etc) by making entries into the fed computers? Works for gubbermint and wall skreet!


James_Cole's picture

For whatever reason it doesn't seem to bother many that this is a tax increase for most and a tax cut for the few. I guess the 'everyone plays by the same rules' is catnip 'mericans can't not love. Like FREEDUM and LIBARTY.

Maybe just cut t the chase and call it the freedom tax. They're calling ever other gawddamn stupid thing freedom these days. 


Mr. Ed's picture



YOU HAVE THE FAIRTAX (which is NOW before the House Ways and Means Committee...I guess you know that, right?) THAT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD AND READY TO GO, BUT YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME WEIRD CRAP LIKE HERMAN CAIN AND HIS 9-9-9.







J J Pettigrew's picture

national sales tax is NOT FAIR!

It immediately reduces the value of any saved money...money that has ALREADY BEEN TAXED....by the % of the "fair tax"..

not to mention the DOUBLE TAXATION on that saved, and taxed money....

Savers have been hammered enough by the Federal Reserve...

Mr. Ed's picture

You've actually stated just one issue: double taxation. 

Although, I think there really are two issues:

   1) the actual value of your money (your real purchasing power) will likely increase under the FairTax because the cost of delivering services and manufacturing goods will decrease absent the weight of compliance under an income based tax.

   2) yes, in some cases where income was high enough that significant income tax had been paid (not FICA or SE) on money saved, there will be double taxation; but, in the vast majority of cases, these will be older and wealthier individuals who've engaged in generational theft from their children and grandchildren through Medicare and SS and extravagant pensions (so maybe a little payback).  This is to me a (largely benign) hang-over from an insane system of taxation that affects me and others of my genereation.  But it's one I am willing to live with. 

I think what it all comes down to is: how important is it for you to have liberty?  Really, how important is that to you?  How important is it to cut a bloated goverment down to size?  Do you mind having to report your financial activities to a governement that can accuse you of under reporting and initiate inquiries when they feel like it?  How do you feel about seizures that bypass due process...an income tax of any kind will allow these abuses to continue because you must continue to file papers with .gov. (unless cash is outlawed and they just take what they want!  Ha!).  How do you feel about the NSA?  It's the same thing in many ways.

But maybe self-ownership's not your bag.

If you're part of the FaceBook generation, maybe you just have to tell others everything about yourself to feel alive and you think no-one should mind doing the same if they "didn't do anything wrong" - if so, then maybe you're okay with it.

I honor and respect the House and Senate sponsors of the FairTax legislation (HR25).  They are willing to give up power so that America came begin climbing out the hole it's fallen into. 

Although I consider myself a Libertarian, what I feel for Rand Paul is contempt.

Ya think he's playin it cool till he gets elected?  And then when he's in office he'll go full-on supporter of Liberty?  Ya think if we keep on the down-lo they'll never notice?  I've been listening to stories like that since the days of YAF in the Sixties.  I'm still waitin...

LibertarianMenace's picture

You're right on, Ed, that is if you're talking sales tax. Tax the traffic, not the assets nor the income. HFT traders would go broke within one of those milliseconds they inhabit. Rand's another Trojan/Manchurian. Got to hand it to those World Controllers though, Mustapha Mond and the boys do keep those choices limited.

LetThemEatRand's picture

If it were up to me, we'd take back the trillions in assets stolen by the .01%, and we wouldn't even be talking about income tax.  The truly wealthy make shit in traditional income compared to other sources of wealth.  But as pointed out in the article, it's a huge tax inrease for those very wealthy persons/corporations who currently use the tax code to avoid taxes altogether, it would be a huge shot in the arm to small business, and last time I checked no one is talking about taking back the assets stolen from us.  

James_Cole's picture

But as pointed out in the article, it's a huge tax inrease for those who currently use the tax code to avoid taxes altogether

if your income (including capital gains) isn't stuck in the US this doesn't address that point at all, which is the actual way people avoid American taxes. This is just another way to gut the avg joe while pretending to stick it to the man. 

Does anyone on earth actually believe moore, forbes and laffer are going to propose a plan which increases taxes on the rich?? Fucking ridiculous. 

LetThemEatRand's picture

Valid point if correct.  The article doesn't go into enough detail to know whether the current loophole for income earned overseas continues.

James_Cole's picture

He's on record favouring a tax holiday 6.5% for corps, i think that says all that needs to be said on that point. 

MontgomeryScott's picture

Ron Paul's an obstetrician (he delivers new lives into the world).

Rand Paul is a dentist (he pulls teeth).

Let's see; The 16th Amendment was NOT ratified, and this is a FACT. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are illegal (and FOREIGN) corporations.

According to their own illegal CODE, as well as Supreme Court decisions, wages ARE NOT INCOME, but rather BARTER (and therefore not taxable). FILING an 'individual tax return' is VOLUNTARY. Being forced to sign an 'individual tax return' under penalty of prosecution for perjury violates the 'self-incrimination' clauses.


Basically, Randy, you can go FUCK YOURSELF for playing along with the OLIGARCHY.

Ask Rand how he feels about armed drones being used to gun down 'suspected criminals' within the CONUS. I watched the television interview, RAND. You will NEVER be able to take back your statements regarding your approval. 

He's on the PAYROLL of the RNC. ENOUGH SAID.


doublesharp's picture

dude, Rand Paul is an eye doctor but don't let the facts get in the way of your bs.

MontgomeryScott's picture

Oh, I forgot.(PHHH! :)

He sticks chemicals and picks and sharp stuff in your eyes AND MAKES YOU GO BLIND (an 'opthamologist') instead of yanking your teeth with a pair of pliers (a 'dentist').

DUDE, I'm SO GLAD you set me straight on this!

After he came out in favor of domestic armed drones being used to gun down 'suspected' criminals within the CONUS, I tried to forget what his 'specialty' was, as well as the fact that I had actually MONETARILY supported his Kentucky Senatorial run.

WELL, I suppose I ought to contact him again, regarding some 'LAZIK' surgery.

It'll be just like 'Logan's Run' old times, I think. Just relax, and support ZION, Mr. Scott. HERE, this won't hurt...

Don't ket the FACTS get in the way of your asshole (which you seem to be very fond of).

DAMN FUNNY, if I do say so, myself! YOU are 'SO SMART'...



sheikurbootie's picture

MontgomeryScott go suck Hillary's dick.  You're a fucking idiot and it's quite obvious to everyone but yourself.  I'm not here to educate you.  I'm here to step on a mental midget.  Now go fuck the fuck off.

Fat Sam's picture

Ophthalmologist, numb nuts....as in corneal transplants. Duke Med doesn't graduate idiots.

MontgomeryScott's picture

Randolph and Mortimer (Duke) are ashamed of me!

Coroneal transplantation and corn flake manufacturing and the price of a clear vision (and FCOJ) are way beyond my limited means. Randy and Morty are, I presume, 'quite intelligent'.

My nuts ARE numb. Perhaps, if you suck on them a little, you could help me regain the feeling down there.

'AYE' doctors are a dime a dozen (if the right people are paying them).

I was TRYING TO BE KIND to this fuckstain RANDY, but, NO...



(Oops, I forgot that he isn't that 'dentist' that said 'Does It hurt?')



The trap is set, and you are falling for it, calling ME a 'numbnuts', you IDIOT.

Took Red Pill's picture

Not such a new idea. Steve Forbes ran for President  in 1996 and 2000, primarily running on a campaign to establish a flat income tax

Alvin Fernald's picture

The NWO wins when people on ZH are arguing in favor of taxes. lol

Teamtc321's picture

LTER your so full of shit, as usual. You wouldn't dare vote for anything that doesnt have Liberal Technocrat by the vote check box.


greenskeeper carl's picture

LTER was a ron paul supporter. I dont agree with him on everything, but i feel like I should point that out

LetThemEatRand's picture

Thanks, man.  But in his defense, I am an asshole notwithstanding my support for Ron.   He's just wrong about why.

greenskeeper carl's picture

meh, he is a douche. If you disagree with someone, say so and explain yourself, posting shit like that is counterproductive trolling

Teamtc321's picture

Green Sweep Carl; for someone who has been a member for 11 weeks and 6 days such as yourself, pull your head out of the sand trap.

Some of us have better things to do than argue with Alinsky tactic tards such as LTER.

But do keep working on your short game' it does need it.

greenskeeper carl's picture

sooo, you have better things to do than argue with him, but nothing better to do than post drivel like that? got it. And Ive been around much longer than 11 weeks, I assure you, not that it matters.. Being a member for 4+ years clearly(especially in your case..) doesnt make you any smarter, or less of a jerk off.

Al Gophilia's picture

I note that your up-tics and junks are neatly divided (6:6) along party lines or between true believers who, despite thousands of years of political history, continue to hope for, no; expect, salvation from the next random White Knight and realists, waiting for the inevitable.
Interesting, one way or the other.

One And Only's picture

Well what if he identified as an African American woman with beliefs strongly entrenched in Islam?

Would you vote for him then?

Right-on Left-off's picture

That's all I needed to hear to realize he's no different than anyone else.

That's biased and ill conceived.  There is a difference between a comment on a subject and a statement on what one is going to do.  Too much is being read into a comment.  The statement could very well be what could happen in response to such an action and is an evaluation of potential reaction by the current American apparatus.  I don't see that Rand states that he feels this is the correct and proper reaction to take nor a reaction that he supports.

booboo's picture

They say never ask a question when you don't already know the answer but i'm pretty sure you don't have one so I will go ahead and ask, What's your plan then?.....Didn't think so.


James_Cole's picture

What's your plan then?

Why would I have a plan? In terms of things I agree with, get rid of payroll taxes, cut small business taxes - both of these are good. A couple ideas: Increase top tax rates - whys such a low threshold? Reform dividend and capital gains (i.e. make them reg income). Majority of peoples tax rates need to come down -yes, Rand's plan doesn't address that. And as usual the very vague 'spending cuts' are much more important to see in detail than the tax cuts. 

But most of all don't pretend the tax code is the way to bring back American jobs. This is such a stupid idea, proven wrong for the past 3 decades and needs to finally be put to death. Has china economy been so miraculous at job creation because of its tax code ??

Al Gophilia's picture

Deck chair arranger.  Same ole' same ole'.

greenskeeper carl's picture

JC, I don't want to raise taxes on anyone, fuck that. The only plans I favor are ones that give less money to the govt. Dont raise taxes on the rich, the poor, the corporations, any of them. I don't care how many loopholes there are, anything that keeps money out of the govts hands is a good thing. Why do I feel this way? Because I disagree with nearly every way in which the government spends money. The vast majority of it goes to unneccessary wars of choice, military hardware we don't need, welfare programs that encourage and perpetuate poverty, and interest on debt that I believe is illigetimate.


Unless you are hopelessly stupid like bernie sanders and think there can be a huge govt that pays for everything(but is still nice and cuddly) you should think the same way. No, I am not rich either, I just don't view other peoples property as targets to for the government to plunder.

James_Cole's picture

JC, I don't want to raise taxes on anyone, fuck that. The only plans I favor are ones that give less money to the govt. 

As it stands tax revenue is a fairly long way off covering expenses (imo this is not a bug, it's a feature). Simply to get to balance A LOT of cutting would need to take place. Thus taxation and government expenditures can be considered two fairly separate things in the US.

When you look in the past the country functioned better when tax rates increased the higher you go up. Was the 1950s an era of government dependence? To me, there is no logic that someone earning $500 000 (from an actual job) is paying the same tax rate (probably higher) as someone moving capital around - usually to the determinant of the majority - and bringing in 10, 20 etc. million. 

No, I am not rich either, I just don't view other peoples property as targets to for the government to plunder.

I have a high income but am not rich or wealthy. I do not encourage government 'plundering peoples property' but I do believe the tax code in the US favours capital holders way too far above people who do actual work and this should change. Tax code is one way to do this and has worked in the past. 

mccvilb's picture

"I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole."

And then he goes on to include suggested deductions and exemptions which reintroduces the need for accountants and lawyers, and a reincarnation of new moar obscure code and more accountants and lawyers. Doesn't a VAT accomplish the same thing, ie equal taxation for all? How has that worked out for the EU?

basho's picture

lot of words, lot of hot air and BS

"According to the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, as of 2013, it now takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of paper to explain the complexity of the U.S. federal tax code!"

IronForge's picture

They'll need to do better than 14.5% with that ol' Budget Deficit that's looming.

RUS is pulling it off since their Payroll Tax (IIRC) was at 33%(I need the Russian Tax Experts to qualify) - not to mention that they have STATE OWNED/VESTED BUSINESS and PETROL/PMETALS/OTHER EXTRACTION Revenue.

Eisenhower and Clinton Tax Rates seemed to work well.  IMHO, the Free Trade Agreements(and related Tariff Removals) that exports Jobs Overseas for goods and services delivered here are causing all the "Giant Sucking Sounds" to be generated in the Job Market(i.e., the TAX BASE).

Farqued Up's picture

You have shit for brains, Cole. Make that SHALLOW shit for brains.

AGuy's picture

"more than 70,000 pages. This is an insane exaggeration, it is closer to a few thousand pages in reality"

His estimate is correct. You not including the Business tax code. Just about all business sectors have different tax regulations, Airlines, telecom, health, agra, etc. All have different rules applied which adds up to about 70K pages. There are also seperate rules for multi-national corporations, to link US federal tax code with foriegn tax code & regulations.

"Employees aren’t hired on a tax basis, they are hired on a demand basis. "

Cutting taxes will improve demand as consumers have more money to spend, thus increasing demand. Also consider there is about 4 to 5 Trillion in cash overseas because of US tax code wihich penalizes corps from spending overseas profits in the US. So instead the invest that capital in building new factories oversea (yes, I am glossing over other issues labor,regulations, etc, but allowing that money to be spend domestically would have some positive impact)

"If people are paying below 14.5% for 2014 they be doing it illegally"

Stashing profits overseas is perfectly legal.  There are also other loopholes, to avoid or at least deferr taxes. I believe Rand plan is to implement a federal sales tax so anything you buy is taxed, and there is no way to avoid this tax. I am strongly against any federal sales tax, because what will happen is they will implement the sales tax first before cancelling the income tax during a "transition" period, but the transition period will never end, thus we end up paying both an federial income and federal sales tax. Just say no to any plan that involves a Federal sales tax.


That said, the 14.5% tax rate is DOA (Dead On Arrival). The Payroll tax is 15.3% (including both the Employer and Employee Contributions) and that is no where near enough to fund entitlements. Medicare runs deficients about $700B per year. To pay for the Boomers the Payroll tax will need to double to about 32%. For a Flat tax to work, it would need to be close to 40%, just to pay for the entitlements and finance the exisitng debt (Assuming the rest of the Fed gov't shut down) The US is very insolvent, and the only way out is to reneg on the entitlments and most of the federal debt. Since the majority of Americans are recipients of either entitlements or weathfare, I very much doubt the public will vote to have their gov't checks cancelled.

Unfortunately Rand's Tax Plan probably just killed his chances for a presidental run. Not a single entitlement recipient or wealthfare recipient, will vote for Rand. Rand should have avoding any details about his plans and just stick to hammering on existing failed policies (War, jobs, Spying, etc) that would have peaked the interest of the average Joe, but not enough for the media to pick his plans apart. The candidates that get elected are the ones that are the most vague about thieir implementation (Clintion, Bush, Reagon, Obama) all very lite on implementation plans and all got elected. You have to keep it dumbed down for the public to win votes. Steve Forbes ran on the flat tax model and he never got even close to becoming the nominee.

FWIW: I suspect that the next President will be O'malley (although its still a bit early). He's vague on details, blames the bankers, does lots of athetic\outdoor photo shoots, a washington outsider, and plays an musical instrument. Not a snowball chance in hell for any GOP candidate now that the GOP house has approved the TPA and the American public learns how the GOP enslaved them. DNC did the smart by voting against the TPP/TPA. Perhaps its all part of the plan to secure the 2016 Presidency for the DNC. Clever!

DISCLOSURE: I am not a fan\supporter of O'Malley or anyone in the DNC. for the most part I am completely disgusted with the GOP.