Home

Ugh!!! THAT is exactly how we got to wear we are!
Maybe folks would feel better with 11-11-2 or something like that? (Again, I'd just prefer 15-15 and be done with it but I'm not running.)
The exemptions and 'pre-bates' are what I do NOT like about the actual 'fair tax' proposal. All of that slippery slope stuff is just "feel good" measures that have no basis in reality and create instant inequity amongst classes and open the door wide open again for vote buying. Don't we have more than enough of that already?

YOU have a choice of "Camps":


I never said Perry was against the tuition deal.He was for it at that time,along with a majority of Texans.

I only posted that comment to point out that you "Perry Bashers" fall in one of two camps;You don't mind lying to make a point,or you just repeat whatever you are told as long as it makes you "FEEL" good.You are no different than the liberals who "hate him for killing all those innocent men on death row".

I don't post on these threads to change anyone's mind,most assuredly not the trio you form with VA and Gus.I don't even expect the three of you to stop repeating the left wing loonyisms you are so fond of re Perry and all things Texas.

Like a fence down the middle of a river.

Reminding folks of the 2A consideration when selecting candidates SHOULD be enough to cause them to dig a little deeper into the backgrounds of ALL the candidates.

It only works with gun owners,though.
_________________________
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place

Deja vu.....

Thanks for stating I have never lied in this or any other thread.

I guess that makes them superior.

One family makes 50K a year and spends every bit of it to live. Another makes a million a year but only spends 10% of it to live...but it's OK...they're superior because they spent a hundred thousand, whereas the "poor folks" only spent 50K.

The fact that it took every bit of it just for the poor folks to live is irrelevant...

to some.

Dick Morris has a "Lunch time" report on Cains 999 tax program. Go to DickMorris.com

While not perfect it will create a great deal of foreign investment in the United States.

Doc

There I fixed it for yah.

Why should one man pay one red cent more than another man? Why is anyone, anyone at all entitled to what anyone else has? How about this, we add up the federal budget, divide it by the populatoin and send everyone a bill for that amount?
It takes every penny I earn to support my family and "retirement" is one of those fantasy things I'm realistically probably just dreaming about. Yet if I had to have some billionaire pay MY share just so I could be better off at the end of each month.... well.... I don't think so. I'm reminded of a story.... (queue dream music.....)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31861

David Kamerschen is a professor of Economics at the University of Georgia who has fun teaching economics to new students fresh to the field. Lots of people who teach economics, including yours truly, have used a variation of David's illustration over the years. It never fails to hit the mark -- if not Marx.

Econ 101 or its equivalent is usually a required course for most college students, most of whom groan when they are forced to take a class in the "dismal science". That's because they never were exposed to real-world lessons in economics when they were in grade school. If we begin to teach our children the facts about how things really work when they are 8 instead of 18, we'd get much smarter voters at 18 -- and far less mushy-thinking socialist "progressives".

Bar Stool Economics:

Let's suppose that a group of 10 graduate students regularly go out to a pub for beer, and the tab for the 10 comes to $100 total. If they pay for their bill the way Americans pay for our taxes (based on our so-called "progressive" tax system), the breakout would be like this:

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing. They get to drink for free.
The fifth pays $1
The sixth pays $3
The seventh pays $7
The eighth pays $12
The ninth pays $18
The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.

Being good friends and liberal progressives, that's what they all agree to do. It seems only fair that each person should pay what they can afford to pay, remembering the old adage they learned in school: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx ).

Every few days, the 10 good friends would meet up in the pub and would pay up as agreed upon.

Then one day, the proprietor gave them a deal. "Since you are such good customers, from now on", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your tab by $20. You can just pay me $80!"

Everyone wanted to continue to pay their bill just the same way as they had before. So the first four people (the poorest) are unaffected. They continue to get to drink for free.

But what about the remaining 6 people? How should they split up the unexpected $20 savings "windfall" so that everyone would get "his fair share"? They figured that $20 shared by 6 comes out to $3.33 each. But if they simply subtracted that amount from each of the 6 paying friends, then person #5 and person #6 would actually be paid to have their beers since person #5 only paid $1 anyway and person #6 only paid $3!

What to do?

The pub owner came to their rescue. He suggested that each person's bill should be reduced by roughly the same amount, and he used his calculator to work out what that should be:

Persons 1-4 continue to get to drink for free
The fifth person, like the first four, now pays nothing and drinks for free (100% savings!)
The sixth pays just $2 instead of the original $3 (33% savings!)
The seventh pays just $5 instead of the original $7 (28% savings!)
The eighth pays just $9 instead of the original $12 (25% savings!)
The ninth pays just $15 instead of the original $18 (17% savings!)
The tenth pays just $49 instead of the original $59 (16% savings!)

All 6 friends were better off then before. And their first four buddies continued to drink for free, because they didn't have a lot of money.

They all felt pretty good about it.

After they thanked the pub owner and left to walk back to campus, they began to compare their savings under this new deal.

The sixth person was very quiet, though. Finally he blurted out. "You know, splitting up the bill that way wasn't fair! I only got a dollar out of that $20 we all saved, and yet (he pointed to the tenth person) he got $10!"

"Hey, you're right", shouted the seventh person. "I got cheated too. I only saved 2 dollars. It's unfair that he got back 5 times more than me!"

"Damn it! I've been ripped off too", yelled the eighth. "Why should he get back $10 when I got back only $3. The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute", screamed friends one through four. "We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

The first nine people surrounded the tenth person and beat him up.

The next day, tempers had cooled down and the nine friends showed back up at the pub. They were sorry for what they had done and they wanted to apologize to their tenth friend.

But the tenth person didn't show up for drinks. So the nine proceeded to drink without him.

When it came time to pay the tab, they discovered that they had a problem. They didn't have enough money among all nine of them to pay for even half of the bill!

"And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works", says Professor Kamershen. "The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

President Obama and the Democratically-controlled congress, good wannabe socialists all, should remember this lessen before all of the rich people (mostly Democrats, by the way, but that's the topic of another article) stop going to the pub with all their other good friends. Raising taxes using a "progressive" tax system penalizes the productive, wealthiest members of our society much more than the average taxpayer. And I'm against that even though it would hurt the many Democrat billionaires far more.

And once we tip over the edge where 50% of the population don't pay income tax at all (the first five "good friends"), we create an us-and-them mentality where the first five vote in the politicians they want to continue to get their beers for free.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays. Until they can't or don't anymore.

John Galt couldn't have said it plainer.

You say that like it's a detriment to the validity of a position around here or something?

And his math sucks too.
9% of my income and 9% of what I spend subject to sales tax doesn�t even come close to 18%

In order for 999 to pass, problems like tax free savings, Roth IRA, would be addressed.

No massive tax increases on retired folks or anybody else.

What are you trying to do? Ruin it for the contented numb masses? Scratch that, they won't (can't) be swayed.

I'm sorry

In order for 999 to pass, problems like tax free savings, Roth IRA, would be addressed.
===============

As would a repeal of the 16th.

This oughta get GOOD along about now.Which is why I'm just gonna READ for awhile.

And it assumes that old retired people spend 100% of their income on taxable (sales) items.

Unless I missed something in Cain's proposal, mortgage, rent, electric bill, water bill, garbage, medical, prescriptions etc., not to mention food ( in most states) would not be any more taxable than they are now.

Retired people don't tend to buy taxable stuff.

Cain has for years been a huge "Fair Tax" proponent and has called for as a condition of that, repeal of the 16th. I've heard him lament many times how a 'clean cut' from what we have now to a "fair tax" would likely not be possible or practical. A 2 phased approach, with 999 being phase 1, is exactly his answer to that 'problem'.
Again, I don't like the fair tax as the 'best' choice. But it is infinitely better than what we have today, so more than happy to ride on the only train with power.

A 2 phased approach, with 999 being phase 1, is exactly his answer to that 'problem'.
================

That's fluff and not well thought through. So,the 2nd phase is the repeal,I take it? Again,how do you think that can be accomplished with what's legislatively required for such a thing? And,in the meanwhile,we have a income tax with a sales tax as the cherry on top of it,I guess,right?

Why not toss the sales tax idea and shift it to a energy consumption or carbon/coal consumption tax and avoid the most risky proposition that 3/4s of this country's legislatures are going to agree to a repeal?

I am all for shifting part of the tax burden to a national sales tax. It's the only way you are going to get the 14 million beaners and the country's untaxed scum to share in the tax burden.

Read this one through,fellas,if you have a moment and a cold beer in your other hand. I find it interesting.


http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/13/the-missing-piece-of-9-9-9

Isaac, I'm clearly not endorsing it as the best approach, as I've said multiple times what I'd do differently. I was simply trying to state what the man has said HIS plan is. Your "repeal the 16th" sort of implied it hadn't been acknowledged. It has. I agree, there are better ways. I only wish someone running was suggesting them.
I'm trying to always weigh 999 against the status quo. Given that, it's easy (for me) to support for multiple reasons.

I was speaking of Cain and his management team,not you.

You need to reform without repeal,that's the answer.