This article is part of the series


Marco Rubio Answers Critics on Tax Reform Plan


Neil’s Spiel: Sen. Rubio responds to critics of his tax plan

FBN’s Neil Cavuto, The Wall Street Journal columnist Veronica Dagher and Cato Institute policy analyst Dan Mitchell on the obstacles to achieving tax reform.

Who says the tax code has to be so darn complicated?

Continue Reading Below

But why do we make it so tough for any politician who dares to make it simpler?

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is the latest to come under fire for a tax plan that could very well mean firing a lot of tax accountants.

His plan would get rid of all investment taxes and narrow the income tax rates to two -- one at 15% for couples making less than $150,000, and the other at 35% for couples making more than $150,000.

He wants to slash corporate tax rates to 25% as well, which he says would encourage them to bring the trillions they hold abroad home.

His proposal is generating plenty of heat on the left AND the right. Here’s how he explained it to me:

Rubio: You do these two things, something that empowers individuals and families combined with a pro-growth tax rate and you’re going to see dramatic growth in our economy, dramatic growth in wages, in productivity.

Cavuto: You know what you're going to hear from your critics, ‘Oh he's a friend of the super rich, someone like Mitt Romney, who gets all his income from capital gains. Walks off Scott free.’

Rubio: Well I always laugh [because] the majority of people who accuse me of that happen to be millionaires who are lecturing me, the son of a bartender and a maid, about the plight of the middle class. At the end of the day what hard-working Americans need is better paying jobs and the only way you’re going to create better paying jobs is by making America the best place in the world to create them. And our tax code, where it stands today, is an impediment of that.

Look, I'm not saying Rubio's plan is best, but I'm saying it's clearly better than what we've got.

We can quibble about deductions and rates and who pays what, but there's no quibbling about the fact that this kind of thing is long overdue.

So instead of faulting guys who try and get out front and call our tax scheme for the sham it is, maybe we should be calling out the critics, who all but seem to be screaming, keep things the way they are.

I say, not an option.

What do you think?

Click the button below to comment on this article.