Jindal: Eliminate Income and Corporate Taxes

Here’s some free market red meat for ya:

Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to eliminate Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes and pay for those cuts with increased sales taxes, the governor’s office confirmed Thursday. The governor’s office has not yet provided the details of the plan.

“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity,” Jindal said in a statement released by his office. “It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”…

I’ve always been wary of a sales tax and have preferred a flat income tax but lately I have been coming around to the sales tax – and not just to eliminate the income tax, but also to eliminate property taxes (at least on single-family homes:  it irks me that after working hard to buy himself a home an American only gets to keep it as long as he shovels money at the government).  There is a lot to be said for going to a sales tax, but I like it best because it discourages consumption and encourages savings – and savings, not spending, is what leads to genuine economic growth.

Our current model, of course, is spending – spend, spend and then spend some more.  And when people don’t have enough to spend, get the government to borrow and/or print up some money to spend because all spending is good, all the time.  To those who still hold to this as correct, I answer:  Greece.  If spending works, then Greece should be prosperous…but they’ve got 26% or so unemployment.  By saving money we set aside genuine wealth which can then be invested – with great care – in the creation and expansion of successful enterprises.  Investment would become real investment, not Wall Street gambling where pinheads try to guess which way the market will go.

While I know our liberals will go ballistic over the concept of eliminating corporate taxes, this is simply because liberals are too blind to understand that every penny of corporate taxes is paid by the consumer.  Corporations don’t pay taxes – even if you see a corporate check made out to the IRS, rely on it that whatever they paid this year will be tacked on to next year’s products.  They can also wiggle out of tax burdens by bribing politicians and regulators to set up the tax code in the corporation’s interest.  By eliminating corporate taxes we’d not only get lower prices on corporate goods and services but we’ll also make our nation a magnet for foreign investors looking to park their money in a low-tax haven.

Jindal is clearly trying to round out his profound reforms of Louisiana politics – but I also hope he’s got an eye on 2016.


34 thoughts on “Jindal: Eliminate Income and Corporate Taxes

  1. Doug Quinby January 11, 2013 / 12:27 am

    Jindal is a fricken loser in my eyes. He instituted a rule in his state to report parents for child abuse who are three days late in paying for their student’s lunches. He shouldn’t be anywhere near the reins of any government. Also if a student doesn’t qualify for free lunch and can’t pay, they get graham crackers and milk. (as opposed to many schools who make sure they get enough food)

    Now, being a parent of three out of the 23 kids who pay for their school lunches at our school (out of 600+ students) and a former school board member, I think Jindal should be reported for child abuse.

    There are other mechanisms to insure students can get a regular meal if they have parents who aren’t caught up on lunch payments – as happens in our family all the time. It’s not because we neglect, it’s because we don’t get a notice that their account is out of money until it’s already two days past due. They still feed them, there are other mechanisms and we use them. Sure, every few years the school might have to eat 30 or 40 dollars, but that is nothing compared to refusing to feed the kids, especially those who pay for everyone elses lunch.

    As Jindal and other liberals like him perfectly know, most of the kids in his schools get free or reduced lunches paid for by taxpayers who happen to be the parents of the very few kids who pay for their lunch. The feds require the schools to charge more and more for their lunches (by law) to those few students to help subsidize the ones who don’t have to pay.

    He’s a horrible liberal who should realize that the only proper way to pay for the lunches is to use money from other areas to make sure each student doesn’t have to pay disproportionally for the lunches.

    Our kids would have been taken away from us by DSHS if we were in his state. POS man, I will so speak my mind on him if he chose to run.

    • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 1:14 am

      From what I’ve read, the law will now ensure that kids of parent’s who haven’t paid will get at least some sort of lunch – they weren’t before – while the provision for reporting to the Department of Family and Child Services was instituted because of fears of neglect if a child’s lunch account is in arrears when the family is able to pay. This doesn’t appear to be a “missed once in a while” like all people can have (myself included) but where it becomes a consistent pattern where a family can pay, but doesn’t. The law, itself, appears to have started at the legislative level – not a gubernatorial effort – and was passed unanimously. I think you’re massively over blowing this.

      UPDATE: I actually went and read the law (Louisiana House Bill 1141) and it is pretty much that – a requirement that the school provide some sort of meal even if the child of a family which can pay has not paid; that the school will contact the parent or guardian to advise them of the non-payment; that only after the third time this has happened in a school year will child protective services be brought in to the picture. So, essentially, you have to be one heck of a screw up to run afoul of this…not just to miss payment, but to miss payment three total times and after having been advised twice before that payment was missed. I work in credit, I know that payments get missed – but when someone’s missed three payments in the course of the year its no longer a matter of “oops” but of “screw up”.

    • neocon01 January 11, 2013 / 3:51 pm

      dum quigley

      it is NOT the governments job to feed anybody.
      what do those kids do during summer vacation….????

      • dougq January 12, 2013 / 3:25 am

        neeocon01, this is how I see it:

        1) The government is there to serve it’s citizens, the citizens are not there to serve the government.

        2) Any person in government employee who believes it is okay for a government to use it’s excessive powers on it’s citizens should not be in that position. (for example, forcing it’s citizens to purchase health insurance at the point of a gun, or in the case of Jindal, using the threat of taking your children away from you if you miss a few dollars worth of lunch payments)

        3) The only students and parents that are affected are those that aren’t getting their lunches paid for by the govt, those who are well above the poverty line, those who are paying the exorbitant taxes to send all the other kids to the school….THEY ARE PAYING FOR EVERYONE’S LUNCHES ANYHOW.

        4) just because a school district wants lunches paid for separately, it’s still just a budgetary line. A school district doesn’t have to force kids to pay to play sports, they don’t have to force kids to pay to take art classes and they don’t have to force kids to pay to eat lunches while at school — well, the feds stepped in a couple years ago and decided they do have to force wealthy families to pay, LA is just one step closer to forcing a small minority of families to pay extra for everything else as well, that is a DEMOCRAT LIBERAL ideology. Should they require wealthy families to pay 10 times as much to send their kids to driver’s education? No, they shouldn’t and don’t….yet.

        I’m tired of these so called ‘conservative’ republicans being held up as who should lead our party. It’s pretty simple: If a GOP politician believes the government should use it’s heavy hand disproportionately to force people to do things, or punish them if they don’t, those GOP politicians should NOT be leading our party. They are fundamentally flawed, they are morally flawed in a major way.

        Jindal has shown it, he’s just being a politician now, just like Christie is and just like Romney has spent too many of the last few years trying to be.

        We need a GOP leader with conviction in his beliefs – that is what wins elections.

  2. Cluster January 11, 2013 / 7:36 am

    Doug, thanks for keeping things in perspective.

    I would like to see a prospectus on the sales tax idea. Is it revenue neutral based on realistic models? Meaning not the models Obama comes up with.

    • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 12:47 pm


      While the details are not available, the basic idea appears to be to keep it revenue neutral…which would require a pretty hefty sales tax, especially as it is certain that any tax would have to go light on basic essentials like food and fuel (don’t have to exclude them – they aren’t excluded, now, and can probably remain the same or maybe be bumped up a little bit). Another thing about it is that everyone is “all in”; there won’t be in Louisiana 47% who don’t pay…100% will pay at least something for the common fund.

      • Cluster January 11, 2013 / 1:07 pm

        Oh I am all for it if it makes financial sense. In fact, this is exactly the kind of leadership we need. I would be in favor of a small flat income tax, say around 5%, to augment the sales tax if it didn’t generate the revenue needed. But this reform idea is exactly what is needed. Think of all the lobbyists that would be out of work, and all the campaign money that would dry up.

      • neocon01 January 11, 2013 / 3:54 pm


        I would be in favor of a small flat income tax, say around 5%, to augment the sales tax

        NO WAY HOSE!!!! they would have it at 35% PLUS the sales tax in a few years,
        sales tax period, and a balanced budget amendment.
        not enough revenues? TS cut spending.

      • Cluster January 11, 2013 / 5:29 pm

        I am talking nationally neocon. A national sales tax with a small flat income tax that was across the board. No exclusions.

      • neocon01 January 11, 2013 / 5:56 pm


        I know I dont trust any politician with an income tax we still have the IRS
        a tax = NO IRS, NO income reporting, No arrest powers, No swat
        teams, No tax cheats, No 47% who do not pay.
        just pay when you buy, and be done with it.

      • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 6:43 pm


        That has always been my worry about a national sales tax – Congress could increase it a quarter percent at a time (“just an emergency, temporary increase to meet the pressing need”, blah, blah, blah) and before you know it we’re paying more in sales taxes than we used to pay in income taxes. But there is the problem – and you’re on it all the time – of the 47%…how to get them in to the taxpayer pool? A sales tax will do it…and as we could set it higher on such things a the latest bit of I-crap and fancy sneakers and designer hoodies, we’d at least discourage the use of welfare for such luxury items. Also, after Democrats jack up the rate (and they would – we can’t keep them out of office forever, no matter how well we do) then the tax cutting issue would resonate with 100% of the population.

      • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 6:44 pm


        The proposal is a major lobbyist-destroyer…so it will be interested to see how the fight over this proposal goes in Louisiana.

      • dougq January 12, 2013 / 3:41 am

        Being from a state with just a sales tax I have observed a number of things:

        The liberals will always try to go back to an income tax claiming that the income tax is a more predictable source …. though data shows that even though sales tax revenue goes up and down based on the economy, it doesn’t diverge as much as income tax revenue does.

        Food stuff would be tax free, that is how you don’t hit the very poor too much, with sales tax only, each taxing district (county or city) can approve their own rate so you will end up with a state sales tax and city tax that could bump it up 50% in some spots.

        It is much more difficult to increase a state sales tax, because the legislators know that it will hit everyone so when it does increase it’s a very small amount, and likely the citizens would have control over that.

        There would still be a black market, sales tax evasion still is a big thing – of course in Jindal territory, after his last ridiculousness maybe it won’t be a problem: You know, the part where he tried to BAN using cash at garage sales. Many businesses, including the Walmart types are always using cash sales as a way to mask how much they owe the state. With the increased use of debit cards and credit cards it has become more difficult though.

      • Amazona January 12, 2013 / 11:33 am

        There is the Flat Tax, which is just what it sounds like—a flat tax on everyone, with no deductions for personal income—and the Fair Tax, which is a sales tax REPLACING (most definitely not in addition to) income tax.

        I prefer the Fair Tax for two reasons: One, it brings in income from illegal activities. While drug dealers may not pay income tax, they do buy stuff. And the other is that it gives control back to the citizen.

        If I want to save more money for a big purchase, or for my future, I can do so by making personal decisions about how I spend my money. It is up to me. I can be extremely frugal, as my parents and grandparents were, learning how to fix things instead of replacing them, doing without, to control the amount of money I give to the government, and then I can make the decision to buy more and therefore pay more in tax when I want to.

        The Fair Tax proposals I have seen do not tax food, and I don’t think medicine is taxed, but services and goods are, and there is a rebate for severely impoverished people.

        I am not in favor of a luxury tax on more expensive items, as to me that smacks of the same type of discrimination the Left is promoting now. The government has no business trying to force people into certain types of behaviors through coercion. It comes back to a ruling elite making a value judgment on what is and is not “acceptable” according to a personal or political agenda.

  3. Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 3:07 pm

    Interesting article at Money News today. The subject of the article, former FDIC Chairman William Isaac, was my fraternity pledge trainer and good friend in college. He answers the supposition by James and several others in the past that, as long as the dollar is the worlds’s reserve currency, we can continue to print as much money as we want without negative consequences. Issac’s comments would not appear to support that:

    Some commentators have advanced the notion that a government shutdown and/or a drop in the government’s credit rating if Congress and the president can’t agree on lifting the debt limit won’t hurt the economy much. Isaac begs to differ.

    The credit rating was reduced from triple-A by Standard & Poor’s in 2011. “Having the credit rating reduced by the other two agencies [Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings] could cause serious problems,” he says.

    There are a lot of institutional investors that can only purchases in triple-A securities. If Moody’s and Fitch decide on downgrades, “you’re going to find a lot of firms around the world that will simply not be allowed to buy U.S. government securities,” Isaac says. “That is potentially a very serious event.”

    • neocon01 January 11, 2013 / 3:49 pm

      we have a sales tax in Fla and NO income tax works great……ALL pay, ALL pay same rate.

    • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 6:49 pm


      And left out of the debate, so far, has been the fact that the Federal Reserve holdings of US bonds is in the $2 trillion range (that is a guesstimate on my part – it was definitely $1.5 trillion more than a year ago and the Fed has bought a lot more since then)…the only reason we can “sell” all the bonds required right now is because the Federal Reserve buys such a gigantic amount of them…if the Fed wasn’t doing that, then a lot of our bonds would already go begging and interest rates would be going through the roof. As we get worse in our fiscal crisis, the Fed will have to buy even more…or allow interest rates to crank up to ruinous levels. How they unwind this position remains unknown – and I don’t think the Fed has a clue. The idea was, of course, that all of this would get our economy rocketing forward at a 4% annual GDP growth or better, thus allowing the Fed to dump the bonds back on the private economy…but that isn’t happening. And if we never get that growth?

      • dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 7:20 pm

        Unfortunately, The Federal Reserve, or as I like to call it–The Monster of Jekyll Island is a great part of the problem and not anywhere near a part of the solution. Thanks once more President Wilson.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 7:59 pm

        if the Fed wasn’t doing that, then a lot of our bonds would already go begging and interest rates would be going through the roof.

        Mark, I would bet that 95% of the population doesn’t realize that. It took 22% interest rates back in the early 80’s to deleverage a much smaller increase in the monetary base. I can’t begin to imagine what it will take to deleverage this time around. And what’s worse, I don’t think the Fed does either. Deeeeeeep Poop, man, reeeeeeeeally deeeeeeeep poop!

      • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 8:05 pm


        They do seem insane – but, I guess they are just carrying out Keynesianism to the logical, suicidal conclusion…

      • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 8:46 pm


        Here’s the really funny thing about it – we could get 5% GDP growth if Obama would just unleash the US economy. The oil/gas boom is already huge and a full court press on it (including the construction of pipe lines and refineries – and here some “stimulus” money from Uncle Sam could actually do some good) would add, pretty quickly, another trillion or so to our GDP as well as massively reducing the amount of money we send overseas for oil and gas (already ports which had been designed for us to import natural gas are being reconfigured for us to export). The follow on to this is a revived steel industry, gigantic increases in mining and a resurgence of the American chemical industry. Just a few regulatory and tax changes and we’re off to the races…while still carrying the liberal welfare State on our backs! But, alas, such moves would anger the environmentalists as well as all those crony capitalists who paid good money to ensure that Obama would keep shoveling money at “green energy”….

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 9:02 pm

        Just a few regulatory and tax changes and we’re off to the races…while still carrying the liberal welfare State on our backs!

        But then we’d be Norway. Besides, Obama doesn’t want capitalism to be the solution. He’s been pretty clear about that.

      • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 9:18 pm


        Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad…and it is sheer madness on Obama’s part not to see that he can, to a certain extent, have his welfare State cake and eat it, too…just takes a dose of free market. It wouldn’t be my ideal solution because we’re still doomed if we don’t kill Big Government, but the energy boom could give socialism another couple decades of life…but Obama doesn’t want to go there.

        Oh, well – just means socialism will collapse all the sooner and then we can take all the credit for the revived economy.

      • Amazona January 12, 2013 / 11:40 am

        “…the only reason we can “sell” all the bonds required right now is because the Federal Reserve buys such a gigantic amount of them..”

        But I would also put “buys” in quotes, as the Fed is “buying” these bonds with newly printed money that has nothing to back it up.

        We are moving imaginary money around from one account to another, saying “See? See all these additional dollars?” But all we are doing is diluting the core value of our currency, not adding to its value.

        It is kind of like the stories my grandmother told about living on the prairie during the Depression—–sometimes she would just have to add more water to the soup. Sure, the pot looked fuller, but the soup was just thinner. The Fed is watering down our currency in the same way, and only the fools look just at how full the pot looks.

  4. dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 11:41 pm

    OT in one respect but on topic for the frivolous and furious spending out of Washi-toons. I thought that Trillion-dollar coins was looney-tunes enough for Washington but this one really has me boiling.

    Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life
    While simultaneously launching effort to disarm the American people

    Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

    The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

    Time for the FLAT / FAIR tax with removal of all other taxes and loopholes getting rid of some of the corruption in DC. Term limits to rid us of some more and time to look towards Texas with what is left of the Federal Government (after review & dismissal of everything unconstitutional) to meeting every two-years to do what little is enumerated to them.


    • Amazona January 12, 2013 / 11:51 am

      The new bill actually just overturns Public Law 103-329, enacted in 1995, which overturned a 1965 law giving former presidents protection for life.

      But the hypocrisy is unchanged. I like the petition to make the entire White House grounds an official gun free zone, and I suggest that the president, the vice president, and the Speaker of the House follow up on this and declare every area within a radius of 100 feet around them official gun-free zones as well.

      The Secret Service could wear jackets saying “I am not armed–please do not shoot” and advance teams could put up stickers telling onlookers that they are entering gun-free zones and also, by the way, it is illegal to shoot people.

      That ought to do it.

      • dbschmidt January 12, 2013 / 3:14 pm

        The Secret Service could wear jackets saying “I am not armed–please do not shoot” and advance teams could put up stickers telling onlookers that they are entering gun-free zones and also, by the way, it is illegal to shoot people. –Ama

        As long as they print it in RED so the people know they really mean it.

      • Amazona January 12, 2013 / 3:30 pm

        I’m not sure if they could do that, db. After all, teachers are not supposed to use red ink to mark students’ papers any more—it is so harsh, you know.

        I think yellow would be OK—a nice sunny, baby-duck yellow. Perhaps if someone indicates an overt threat, a stern look might be allowed. And the O’s could all be smiley faces……………

  5. Cluster January 12, 2013 / 8:31 am

    Another OT topic, but indicative of the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and incredible void of leadership that plagues this nation:

    In 2006 Harry Reid said this about raising the debt ceiling: “They should explain how more debt is good for our economy … how can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, to finance this debt through higher taxes? Why is it right to increase our dependence on foreign creditors?”

    Yet just yesterday:

    Top Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate have reportedly told the executive branch they won’t object if the president simply declares he has the power to impose even greater financial debts on Americans.

    Everyone in Nevada should apologize to this country for sending Reid to the Senate.

  6. Cluster January 12, 2013 / 8:38 am

    Another OT but this is a target rich environment right now:

    I guarantee you this chick voted for Obama:

    “As a newly-graduated person, someone coming straight out of college, I don’t like the idea of having less money coming to me due to the selfish interests of people in Congress who don’t have any interest in reducing our financial problems,” Hoffman told FoxNews.com. “This is an impediment for future economic growth. It’s going to make it harder for young people like myself to get married, find a better job, you name it.”

    She should be thankful she has a job, which may not be the case next year. Democrats are looking to raise taxes again. After all, Moochelle has more 4 star vacations to go on.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/11/lighter-paychecks-to-hamper-many-americans-amid-uncertain-economic-times/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2HlRX5ZWo

  7. Retired Spook January 12, 2013 / 10:18 am

    It appears that there are some spending items that even Obama has a limit on.

    • neocon01 January 12, 2013 / 11:07 am

      he cancelled the F22, missile defense, and many other necessary systems.
      The anti Christ and his destruction of America and Israel.

  8. Cluster January 12, 2013 / 4:56 pm

    To know that Obama is a great leader, all we have to do is look at where he started. Chicago. Why that’s a place free from poverty and violence and brimming with people just soaking in the wonders of his vision./sarc

    Two gunmen shot a 14-year-old boy several times Friday night as he stood on his porch, leaving him to die in the front hallway of his Humboldt Park home, authorities said.The shooting came just hours after a 15-year-old boy was fatally shot in a separate attack in the Little Village neighborhood. Including both homicides, at least six teens were shot since Friday afternoon, according to police.

  9. Jeremiah January 13, 2013 / 12:58 am

    We just had three shootings here in the past week.

    One guy was wielding a rifle at a busy intersection, and cops shot him several times, and removed the threat. Fortunately no one else was killed. Just the gunman.

    Two roommates had a dispute, and one pulled out a shot gun and shot the other in the chest and head a couple times dead.

    Another two were arguing over who would have sex with this woman, and one man pulled out a double-barrel on the other and pulled both triggers on him.

Comments are closed.