If conservatives think raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea in a recession then raising taxes on the middle-class is a really bad idea. Cain will be sunk by his own 9-9-9 plan and if he tries to back off it now the flip-flop sinks him.
That, and they don't count in the fact that the 9% income tax REPLACES the SS/FICA crap that everyone has stolen from their checks currently. That would be a far greater number than 9%.
I wonder about the "middle class" definition. If about half of the citizens do not pay any federal income tax, as has been reported, then half of the middle class would have to pay more because they are not paying anything now.
I have not investigated 999 but would be cautious accepting anything ABC news said as being accurate.
I am all for a flat tax collected the day before elections.
Class warfare is great as long as it isn't your "class" that is being asked to do more. Cain at this point has my vote. Flat tax and get everyone in the game. 999 is a good start.
When I first watched Cain's clip on the plan a month ago, I he didn't say it eliminated SS payments... so it seemed mathematically an increase to the taxpayers and a decrease for the businesses. 9% + 9% + 15.3% (SS) = 33.3% for everyone plus state and local income/sales... gets to 50% fast.
But... take out the 15.3% SS, then the 9% income will be used up for that and the 9% sales tax is the real tax. 18% total... You'd have to be paying 2.7% or less income tax to pay more with the 9% 9%.
So for most middle class it's a tax reduction... for the nonpayers, it's an increase at the sales counter.
Of course.. their definition of middle class is a family of 4 making 50K. How about the same family making say 125K.. Aren't they still middle class? They are likely to see a tax reduction under Cains Plan.
So, a family of 4 making 50K is gonna get a tax increase, and a family of 4 making 125K is gonna get a reduction?
It would still give the middle and lower classes significantly higher tax percentage to pay as they have to spend a much higher percentage of of their income on essentials to live. The 9% sales tax would bring that rate disparity as all or nearly all middle/lower class income is required for families to live. Wealthy have much more discretionary income and can more readily choose not to spend and keep their tax burden lower.
If you have a family of four with an income of just under $50,000, they would pay more under the Cain plan. Currently, they are taxed at just less than 7 percent and pay $3,400 in income tax. Under Cain�s plan, they would be taxed at 9 percent or pay $4,500.
They deleted the social security part. If their current tax rate is 7%, they're paying 14% because they pay an additional 7% in SSI. This would reduce their taxes by 5%, not increase them.
Incentivizes investment by getting rid of capital gains taxes.
Incentivizes job production by lowering taxes on producers.
Gives family owned businesses continuity by killing the death tax.
Tilts toward American production by shifting taxes off our producers and putting tax on consumption of imported goods which do not exist today as such.
Gets the political pandering class out of social engineering by taxation.
And your source is ABC??????????????????????? Cisco
I don't trust the MSM, so I figured the difference myself and it's even worse for Cain than ABC reported if you include retired folks in the middle class.
Being they are retired they pay no payroll tax, so there's no offset to buffer the 9% flat income tax with no deductions.
Unless Cain has more details some place that I haven't found, then money from a Roth IRA, which is tax free now, gets taxed at 9%. Money from Social Security, which is tax free now unless you have too much other income, is taxed at 9%. Then all that money is taxed at 9% again by the new federal sales tax. That adds up to an 18% tax increase on retirement income and a 9% tax increase on savings.
A couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see a $9,000 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
Cain's plan is simple and it simply shifts the tax burden from the highest income people to lower income people. Like Santorum said in the debate, Congress will never pass the 999 plan. Cain's a one trick pony and when retired folks learn about the massive tax increase they would get under 999, Cain will be heading for the exit.
They deleted the social security part. If their current tax rate is 7%, they're paying 14% because they pay an additional 7% in SSI. This would reduce their taxes by 5%, not increase them.
Not quite accurate, but using your 5% reduction in income tax, they then pay an additional 9% in federal sales tax. The result is a 4% tax increase.
One advantage to 999 for those of us on Social Security with income from other sources,such as a working wife,is that ALL our income would be taxed at the same rate up front.
In most years,999 would give us a small reduction in our total tax bill.In other years , it would be a wash.The variation in our case is that the wife's income is seasonal and variable.
That article is another typical BS hit piece. It makes some very broad assumptions by narrowing the focus group right out the gate. Family of four making just UNDER 50k for example. It then goes on to completely disregard the sales tax this fictional family might already be paying and states any sales tax is seen as an increase.
I love how folks want to fix the problems this nation has, until it means that everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it. Then, no one wants to.
Even if Roth IRA and Social Security income is exempt from Cain's 9% income tax, it will still get hit by Cain's 9% sales tax. A retire couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see at least a $4,500 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
Paying an equal percentage is one thing, but having to pay a new tax on money the income tax has already been paid on is just wrong.
You're assuming that retirees should be exempt from having to shoulder part of the burden to fix this nation?
Why the class warfare?
I assume you'd just rather the younger generations shoulder all the burden now and later, right?
Newsflash: tax rates WILL increase. Now, the question is whether to do it equally, fairly, and evenly across the board, or whether to continue the class and generational warfare of the current system.
I love how folks want to fix the problems this nation has, until it means that everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it. Then, no one wants to.
That's pretty much it. Maybe I'm the only one that heard Cain say plainly and clearly that for SOME folks taxes would go up and for SOME folks taxes would go down. I think we all agree our current tax disaster is anything but 'flat'. Anything you do that increasing parity and 'fairness' by definition will have some paying more and some paying less. I honestly don't care if it raises my family's tax burden. As long as we are ALL pulling the wagon, I'm IN! Those wanting a free or reduced fair ride, PULL YOUR OWN WEIGHT!
I love how folks want to fix the problems this nation has, until it means that everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it. Then, no one wants to.
I think the masses will reject it because everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it...when everyone hasn't benefitted equally from the system. The view is that nobody generates wealth in isolation from the system in which they do business. Examples, such as Wall Street tycoons who make many tens of millions of dollars per year having benefitted from the system that lots of poor kids have given their lives defending, mean something to the masses. They see the progressive income tax as a means where those who have benefitted the most from the system...a system they didn't create on their own, that others also worked hard to build, and in many instances even gave their lives to defend...pay more percentage wise to support that system.
One advantage to 999 for those of us on Social Security with income from other sources,such as a working wife,is that ALL our income would be taxed at the same rate up front.
In most years,999 would give us a small reduction in our total tax bill.In other years , it would be a wash.The variation in our case is that the wife's income is seasonal and variable.
No Boggy,she ain't pullin' bolls.
Under no circumstances would you pay less under Cain's 999 plan unless your wife's income puts you in one of the top two tax brackets under the current system. If so, you're not really middle class. Remember, you'll also be paying an new federal 9% sales tax on top of any state sales tax.
I heard Boehner on Greta last night. She asked him very directly if there was an 'appetite' to 'drastically change our current tax system with anything remotely resembling 999 or any other plan'. He about spun himself into orbit trying to say he favors "flattening and simplifying" the current tax code but wouldn't say what he really meant to say which was "Heck NO there's no appetitie for that Greta! If you do something like 999 and elminate all deductions and exemptions, how in the world are we suppose to buy votes! We've worked for a couple of generations to get our current tax system to be the ultimate vote buying scheme and it works great. Nobody even knows what their affective tax rate is and we can change their rate without them even knowing. Plus we can always threaten to raise taxes on the other/bad guy to buy even more votes. Stop trying to mess up a good thing!" So yes, Congress will be resistent but if Cain gets elected, it will be in good measure because of this tax overhaul. I realize they have short memories but members of Congress would be wise not to ignore the voting public yet again.
One advantage to 999 for those of us on Social Security with income from other sources,such as a working wife,is that ALL our income would be taxed at the same rate up front.
In most years,999 would give us a small reduction in our total tax bill.In other years , it would be a wash.The variation in our case is that the wife's income is seasonal and variable.
No Boggy,she ain't pullin' bolls.
Under no circumstances would you pay less under Cain's 999 plan unless your wife's income puts you in one of the top two tax brackets under the current system. If so, you're not really middle class. Remember, you'll also be paying an new federal 9% sales tax on top of any state sales tax.
So you know his personal household income situation better than he does or is he just bad at math?
I love how folks want to fix the problems this nation has, until it means that everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it. Then, no one wants to.
I think the masses will reject it because everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it...when everyone hasn't benefitted equally from the system. The view is that nobody generates wealth in isolation from the system in which they do business. Examples, such as Wall Street tycoons who make many tens of millions of dollars per year having benefitted from the system that lots of poor kids have given their lives defending, mean something to the masses. They see the progressive income tax as a means where those who have benefitted the most from the system...a system they didn't create on their own, that others also worked hard to build, and in many instances even gave their lives to defend...pay more percentage wise to support that system.
Damned shame no one wants to actually believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Under no circumstances would you pay less under Cain's 999 plan unless your wife's income puts you in one of the top two tax brackets under the current system. If so, you're not really middle class. Remember, you'll also be paying an new federal 9% sales tax on top of any state sales tax.
My plan here is to simply not buy anything. Leastwise nothing new.
I will gladly pay 9% on seeds and grow pretty much anything needed. Couple of used Rhode Island Reds, a cow and a horse I'm set. A used cow and horse that is!
That, and they don't count in the fact that the 9% income tax REPLACES the SS/FICA crap that everyone has stolen from their checks currently. That would be a far greater number than 9%.
I was wondering if that was the case...thanks for the info!
You're assuming that retirees should be exempt from having to shoulder part of the burden to fix this nation?
Why the class warfare?
I assume you'd just rather the younger generations shoulder all the burden now and later, right?
Newsflash: tax rates WILL increase. Now, the question is whether to do it equally, fairly, and evenly across the board, or whether to continue the class and generational warfare of the current system.
Even if shifting the tax burden from the upper income to the lower income folks is fair in your book, what about double taxing, do you think that's fair? People saving for their retirement pay the current income tax on the money they put in Roth IRAs, savings bonds, municipal bonds and other investments that the government has promised would be free from federal taxes in the future. Now Cain's 9% sales tax breaks that promises and you don't see anything wrong with that? If your mortgage company increased your principle by 9% after the fact you would be shouting robbery, but if the government does it you're ok with it. What are you, some kind of closet liberal?
I support it. I have heard some don't like the 9% sales tax, believing it will kill large purchases. Maybe, but then just maybe it would change the way people buy things like cars on a whim, because all they know is "what's my monthly payment?".
But that sales tax is the REAL leveling factor. NOBODY skates away from not paying it. You buy a pack of gum, you pay tax. You buy a house, you pay tax. It's everybody's tax, and everybody buys things.
If the Senate doesn't change majority as well as getting rid of Hussein, we're back to square one, almost.
Newsflash: tax rates WILL increase. Now, the question is whether to do it equally, fairly, and evenly across the board, or whether to continue the class and generational warfare of the current system.
EXACTLY!
Cain is just putting it out there for us now. Everyone else seems to be trying to wait and say they won't increase, but they will slide the increases in somewhere.
Guess the fact that we've never had an honest politician is getting to some of us.
Apparently it is lost on the liberals around here that eventually we have to actually DO SOMETHING to fix this mess we have dug ourselves into. All the grand schemes to make everything fair and to make the "rich man" pay his share have failed miserably.
The social equality policies of tax and spend Democrats over the last 50+ years are the root of the problem, the bill is due, and it's time for everyone to man up and shoulder some of the load...
A plan such as this, coupled with deep and lasting cuts to the size of government are what is going to be necessary. You can piss and moan about the fairness of it all you want, but there is going to be some pain for all before we get this turned around.
So you know his personal household income situation better than he does or is he just bad at math?
I don't need to. I know the current income tax code well enough to know that the only way Cain's plan results in lower taxes is if the household income is in the upper two tax brackets where the effective tax rate, with deduction, is over 18%. Anyone with an effective tax rate of less than 18% will see a tax increase under Cain's plan.
Anyone working in their own business where they are organized as a subchapter S corp. will see an additional tax increase because Cain's plan eliminates the tax free pass through such corporations now enjoy. That's most small businesses; that's most job creators in this country. That's why Cain's plan is dumb dumb dumb.
I find it amazing that some of you think the idea of taxing SS as income is acceptable in the first place. 999- No payroll deductions other than 9% off the top, and if you decide to spend every other cent out there on retail, another 9%. How is that not simple... If you don't want to go retail then you save money. The Flea Market would make a resurgence...
Anyone working in their own business where they are organized as a subchapter S corp. will see an additional tax increase because Cain's plan eliminates the tax free pass through such corporations now enjoy. That's most small businesses; that's most job creators in this country. That's why Cain's plan is dumb dumb dumb. =================
Dean Clancy, Legislative Counsel for Tea Party organizer Freedomworks, seems like the perfect demographic for Cain�s idea on paper. And he�s even sympathetic to the principles behind it on both moral and economic grounds.
�In an ideal system you would not tax businesses at all and you would tax all individuals at the same low rate with no special interest loopholes,� Clancy told TPM on Wednesday. �If you want to help poor people, do it outside the tax code.�
But he�s not on board with Cain and one reason is because American voters aren�t ready for that kind of change.
�It�s politically always hard to do something that raises taxes for some and lowers for others,� he said. �So the consensus is really for cutting taxes and the only way you can do that is by cutting spending.�
The other issue Clancy and other anti-tax conservatives like Grover Norquist cite is Cain�s reliance on a consumption tax to finance government. Until recently, a national sales tax has been largely a Republican idea: Rick Perry even gave it a shout out in his book. But in recent years, Republicans have decided it�s too close to European countries� Value Added Tax, sparking fears that politicians will use it as a Trojan Horse for socialism.
But if Republicans beyond Cain and Huntsman are unwilling to raise taxes on the bottom half of taxpayers or transition to a consumption tax, their hands are tied. TPM asked both the Romney and Perry campaigns how they�d handle the 47% problem they�ve both derided, but received no response.
Under no circumstances would you pay less under Cain's 999 plan unless your wife's income puts you in one of the top two tax brackets under the current system. If so, you're not really middle class. Remember, you'll also be paying an new federal 9% sales tax on top of any state sales tax.
My plan here is to simply not buy anything. Leastwise nothing new.
I will gladly pay 9% on seeds and grow pretty much anything needed. Couple of used Rhode Island Reds, a cow and a horse I'm set. A used cow and horse that is!
If we all did that it would cut federal revenue by at least 33%, so they would just increase 999 to 12-12-12 to make up for it. Cain has never been able to explain how 999 wouldn't increase given he could only block such increases for 8 years max.
So you know his personal household income situation better than he does or is he just bad at math?
I don't need to. I know the current income tax code well enough to know that the only way Cain's plan results in lower taxes is if the household income is in the upper two tax brackets where the effective tax rate, with deduction, is over 18%. Anyone with an effective tax rate of less than 18% will see a tax increase under Cain's plan.
Anyone working in their own business where they are organized as a subchapter S corp. will see an additional tax increase because Cain's plan eliminates the tax free pass through such corporations now enjoy. That's most small businesses; that's most job creators in this country. That's why Cain's plan is dumb dumb dumb.
Sir, You simply could not be more incorrect. Pick an income level that you are so concerned about and let me run the numbers for you. You do realize that almost no one has less than an 18% tax rate correct? You do realize the payroll taxes ALONE are 15.3% correct? I presume you also realize nobody spends all their income on TAXABLE goods or services. Your mortgage payment, is not a taxable good or service. So give me an income level you are concerned about and tell me if this hypothetical filer is filing single or married/jointly.
Under Cain's plan,all utility bills will be subject to a 9% tax , I guess.Since lot's of utility bills are collected by cities, how many new employees is City Hall going to demand in order to collect and forward the taxes?
When I pay my hunting leases,are the rancher's gonna have to send 9% to the Feds?
If a farmer saves his seed instead of buying "new" seed , does he have to calculate its' worth and send 9% to the Feds?
If the answer to these questions is "exemptions",999 is dead in the water.
Paying an equal percentage is one thing, but having to pay a new tax on money the income tax has already been paid on is just wrong.
You mean like the capital gains tax or the completely immoral death tax we currently have that goes AWAY under 999?
Cain's plan treats capital gains as ordinary income, so you pay 9% income tax and then 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 18%. That's a 3% tax increase over the current capital gains tax rate of 15%. Didn't you know that?
Paying an equal percentage is one thing, but having to pay a new tax on money the income tax has already been paid on is just wrong.
You mean like the capital gains tax or the completely immoral death tax we currently have that goes AWAY under 999?
Cain's plan treats capital gains as ordinary income, so you pay 9% income tax and then 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 18%. That's a 3% tax increase over the current capital gains tax rate of 15%. Didn't you know that?
Why, how catastrophic! 3% to level the playing field....
Yep, can't do that. Gotta continue the class and generational warfare.
You do realize that almost no one has less than an 18% tax rate correct?
And you do realize that the table rate and effective rate, after exemptions, deductions and credits are nearly always significantly less than the table rate, don't you?
If no one had an effective rate less than 18% we might not have this issue to contend with, but we likely would anyway as our criminal congress would just spend all the more. That is where the real tax problem lies.
Those are not taxable goods or services (with the probable exception of utility services). Sales of used goods are also not taxable. After pressure from new car dealers, and in their never ending money grab, the Georgia legislature just implemented sales tax on vehciles between private parties for example. Totally unjustifiable IMHO. Those same sales would NOT be federally taxable under 999. For business it is simply gross income less investements, B2B purchases and dividends. The only 'exemption' (for individual income) is charitable contributions. Imagine a tax code that fits on one 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. The horror!
Paying an equal percentage is one thing, but having to pay a new tax on money the income tax has already been paid on is just wrong.
You mean like the capital gains tax or the completely immoral death tax we currently have that goes AWAY under 999?
Cain's plan treats capital gains as ordinary income, so you pay 9% income tax and then 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 18%. That's a 3% tax increase over the current capital gains tax rate of 15%. Didn't you know that?
For crying out loud, your calculations are INCORRECT. I'm still waiting an income number you'd like me to run so we can get on the same page. From his website since apparently everybody is allergic to reading it.
Phase 1 - 9-9-9 Current circumstances call for bolder action. The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan incorporates the features of Phase One and gets us a step closer to Phase two. I call on the Super Committee to pass the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan along with their spending cut package. The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan unites Flat Tax supporters with Fair tax supporters. Achieves the broadest possible tax base along with the lowest possible rate of 9%. It ends the Payroll Tax completely � a permanent holiday! Zero capital gains tax Ends the Death Tax. Eliminates double taxation of dividends Business Flat Tax � 9% Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders. Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for payroll employed in the zone. Individual Flat Tax � 9%. Gross income less charitable deductions. Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone. National Sales Tax � 9%. This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.
You do realize that almost no one has less than an 18% tax rate correct?
And you do realize that the table rate and effective rate, after exemptions, deductions and credits are nearly always significantly less than the table rate, don't you?
If no one had an effective rate less than 18% we might not have this issue to contend with, but we likely would anyway as our criminal congress would just spend all the more. That is where the real tax problem lies.
Of course I understand that. I also understand a few other things. No one, reading this thread, right now can say what their affective tax rate was last year, will be theis year or next year. Heck most people think if they get a refund check at the end of the year they didn't pay taxes! So yes, I realize I'm not dealing with an informed public when it comes to taxes. Unfortunately, neither is Mr. Cain. That will be by far his biggest problem.
Sir, You simply could not be more incorrect. Pick an income level that you are so concerned about and let me run the numbers for you. You do realize that almost no one has less than an 18% tax rate correct? You do realize the payroll taxes ALONE are 15.3% correct? I presume you also realize nobody spends all their income on TAXABLE goods or services. Your mortgage payment, is not a taxable good or service. So give me an income level you are concerned about and tell me if this hypothetical filer is filing single or married/jointly.
Ok, figure it out for a retired couple with 50,000 of income from Social Secerity and a Roth IRA. Remember, retired folks don't pay payroll taxes at all unless they have income from still working (not really retired). Currently they pay 0% federal taxes. Tell me how much they would pay under Cain's plan. There's over 50 million retire folks so it's a big voting block that needs to know what Cain's plan does to them.
Also you are assuming mortgage payments and utility bills will be exempt from Cain's 9% sales tax. If so, Cain's flat sales tax is not so flat after all. I know Cain's sales tax applies to food, unlike some state sales taxes, so it may also apply to mortgage payments and utility bills. The devil is in the details.
Also, only the self-employed pay 15.3% payroll tax. Ordinary employees pay 7.65% (actually 5.65% this year). You can't assume employers will use their 7.65% savings to increase wages being they'll lose lots of other tax deductions under Cain�s plan.
I like the way it makes hookers, drug dealers and gangstas pay fed (sales) tax that they never paid before. Revenue from the underground economy gets taxed which it hasn't in the past. I suspect this represents serious revenue potential.
Sir, You simply could not be more incorrect. Pick an income level that you are so concerned about and let me run the numbers for you. You do realize that almost no one has less than an 18% tax rate correct? You do realize the payroll taxes ALONE are 15.3% correct? I presume you also realize nobody spends all their income on TAXABLE goods or services. Your mortgage payment, is not a taxable good or service. So give me an income level you are concerned about and tell me if this hypothetical filer is filing single or married/jointly.
Ok, figure it out for a retired couple with 50,000 of income from Social Secerity and a Roth IRA. Remember, retired folks don't pay payroll taxes at all unless they have income from still working (not really retired). Currently they pay 0% federal taxes. Tell me how much they would pay under Cain's plan. There's over 50 million retire folks so it's a big voting block that needs to know what Cain's plan does to them.
Also you are assuming mortgage payments and utility bills will be exempt from Cain's 9% sales tax. If so, Cain's flat sales tax is not so flat after all. I know Cain's sales tax applies to food, unlike some state sales taxes, so it may also apply to mortgage payments and utility bills. The devil is in the details.
Also, only the self-employed pay 15.3% payroll tax. Ordinary employees pay 7.65% (actually 5.65% this year). You can't assume employers will use their 7.65% savings to increase wages being they'll lose lots of other tax deductions under Cain�s plan.
Why is it that you think some Americans need to be exempt from fixing this nation's problems, and having equal skin in the game when it comes to funding programs and budgets?
Exactly why is it that continuing class and generational warfare amongst Americans seems like the best idea to you?
Paying an equal percentage is one thing, but having to pay a new tax on money the income tax has already been paid on is just wrong.
You mean like the capital gains tax or the completely immoral death tax we currently have that goes AWAY under 999?
Cain's plan treats capital gains as ordinary income, so you pay 9% income tax and then 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 18%. That's a 3% tax increase over the current capital gains tax rate of 15%. Didn't you know that?
For crying out loud, your calculations are INCORRECT. I'm still waiting an income number you'd like me to run so we can get on the same page. From his website since apparently everybody is allergic to reading it.
Phase 1 - 9-9-9 Current circumstances call for bolder action. The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan incorporates the features of Phase One and gets us a step closer to Phase two. I call on the Super Committee to pass the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan along with their spending cut package. The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan unites Flat Tax supporters with Fair tax supporters. Achieves the broadest possible tax base along with the lowest possible rate of 9%. It ends the Payroll Tax completely � a permanent holiday! Zero capital gains tax Ends the Death Tax. Eliminates double taxation of dividends Business Flat Tax � 9% Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders. Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for payroll employed in the zone. Individual Flat Tax � 9%. Gross income less charitable deductions. Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone. National Sales Tax � 9%. This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.
OK, no income tax on capital gains, so it's not realy a flat income tax, which undermines everyone pays the same tax rate fairness deal many on this thread like so much.
Looks like under Cain's plan Warren Buffett will still be paying at a lower rate than his secretary, and maybe no income tax at all. Just great.
"Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders."
OK- I pay a rancher for a hunting lease.He has to pay 9% to the Feds.[passive income according to Sean].Since I'm "purchasing from another business-the rancher- whatever I pay him[let's say 1000 bucks to make it easy] is a business expense for purposes om MY taxes.
Now I sublease it to Sean for 1300 bucks.I have to charge him 9% of the 1300 bucks and send it to the Feds.
At the end of the year,I send the Feds another 9% of the 300 dollar profit I made.
That's simple enough[I guess].
Under the present system,I get 13 Benjamins from Sean,pocket 3 and give the rancher 10.
Exactly why is it that continuing class and generational warfare amongst Americans seems like the best idea to you?
Sean, I think the question should be: Is advocating a middle class tax increase the best strategy to unseat Obama? Is it a winning strategy going into 2012?
Keep in mind that people tend to vote for their own economic self interests, and this won't be in their best interests regardless of how fair it might be.
Actually those of us who have gray hair had a fair hand in causing the problem. Not so much the young ones who are getting the bill.
Someone finally said it.
Thank you.
Personally, I'd love to say "f'k you" to the IRS and have those leaching off me and mine deal on their own.
Didn't save enough for your retirement and can't get by? Not my f'kin' problem; get a job.
Can't pay for your health care? Not my f'kin' problem; find a charity, rely on family, or die.
But, no, the class and generational warfare has to continue until the whole damned system collapses, just so the "some pigs are more equal than others" mind set can blame the younger generations and stick them with the tab, then whine when the tab can't be paid.
I don't give a schit whether it's 9-9-9, 5-5-5, or 30-30-30; get everyone's skin in the game equally, and have ALL Americans ponying up for the excesses of .gov, and we'll see quickly what's really important, and what can go away.
Exactly why is it that continuing class and generational warfare amongst Americans seems like the best idea to you?
Sean, I think the question should be: Is advocating a middle class tax increase the best strategy to unseat Obama? Is it a winning strategy going into 2012?
Keep in mind that people tend to vote for their own economic self interests, and this won't be in their best interests regardless of how fair it might be.
F'k Hussein, f'k class and generational warfare, and f'k an unequal tax structure just because it's politically expedient.
Identify the damned problem, create a simple, direct solution, and get everyone in on the fix equally.
Otherwise, Hell.... put Hussein back in there, and let's crash this whole damned thing once and for all, so we can rebuild it back from the ashes.
Why is it that you think some Americans need to be exempt from fixing this nation's problems, and having equal skin in the game when it comes to funding programs and budgets?
Well it turns out Cain's plan is not flat after all being that there's no tax on capital gains. Folks like Warren Buffett would pay at a lower rate than ordinary wage earners. Maybe you should ask Cain why he thinks some Americans need to be exempt from fixing this nation's problems, and having equal skin in the game when it comes to funding programs and budgets.
Originally Posted by VAnimrod
Exactly why is it that continuing class and generational warfare amongst Americans seems like the best idea to you?
Guess you think there's no difference between retired folks, their children and their grand children when it comes to the economy and taxes. Your class and generational warfare shtick is blind to the laws of nature and reality.
I haven't read the entire thread, and so I apologize if this has already been pointed out. I'm sure ABC didn't choose the "family of four with a $50,000 income" by chance. They likely chose it because they believe it makes the 999 plan look bad.
A family of four making $50,000 would have four personal exemptions at $3,700 each, for a total deduction from income of $14,800. The $50,000 is down to $35,200. The standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $11,600, and so the $50,000 gross income is now $23,600 in taxable income. Other deductions/credits could reduce taxable income even further.
According to the 2010 Tax Tables, the tax liability for a married couple filing jointly with $23,600 in taxable income is $2,706. From this amount, the family of four could deduct a $1,000 child tax credit for each child, or $2,000 total.
When all is said and done, this hypothetical family of four making $50,000 would have an income tax liability of $706. $706 divided by $50,000 equals an effective federal income tax rate of only 1.4%.
Any meaningful tax reform plan that would put this country on a sound financial footing is going to require more than a 1.4% tax rate (or less) from the vast middle class. I'd be willing to pay more if it meant that my kids would not inherit a bankrupt, third-world country.
Hussein will welcome your continued support, Komrade, as like you, he sees some pigs as more equal than others.
So why should Warren Buffett and other wall street fat cats get a lower tax rate under Cain's plan than most other Americans? Apparently you see some pigs as more equal than others.
Cain's plan is "exposed"? Goodness, he's doing all he can go get some exposure for it! And from nice 'neutral' source like ABC? Maybe you might find a source that isn't just a slice of the Democrat propaganda wing?
Cain's plan would shift taxes in a way that would make them transperant even to most of America's dummies who can't see how hidden taxes are eating them alive!
Ever notice that the Dems ALWAYS demonize the mean ol' rich and say they favor the 'working man'? But the system remains the same and the really rich give far more money to Dems than the competition so maybe there's something between what Dems say and what Dems do that isn't quite right? (Dwell on that a few minutes!)
All BOzo and company have to run on next year is racial demigoguery. It's going to be the worst slime and smear canpaign ever seen of whomever the Republican nominee is! But Cain has to be their worst nightmare; how can they rage that all non-BO voters are racist if we vote for an intelligent real black man instead of a bumbling, empty suit half breed?
I keep reading stuff like this.Then I look at my situation,where the wife and I make about the 50 k you use an illustration and we pay over 5K in income tax.
AND I'M IN THE GENERATION THAT SEAN WANTS TO " HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME".
I love how folks want to fix the problems this nation has, until it means that everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it. Then, no one wants to.
That's pretty much it. Maybe I'm the only one that heard Cain say plainly and clearly that for SOME folks taxes would go up and for SOME folks taxes would go down. I think we all agree our current tax disaster is anything but 'flat'. Anything you do that increasing parity and 'fairness' by definition will have some paying more and some paying less. I honestly don't care if it raises my family's tax burden. As long as we are ALL pulling the wagon, I'm IN! Those wanting a free or reduced fair ride, PULL YOUR OWN WEIGHT!
I keep reading stuff like this.Then I look at my situation,where the wife and I make about the 50 k you use an illustration and we pay over 5K in income tax.
AND I'M IN THE GENERATION THAT SEAN WANTS TO " HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME".
Yep.
You and your wife make $50k. 9% of that is $4,500. The rest of what you pay in taxes depends upon how much you buy, and how you buy it.
I haven't read the entire thread, and so I apologize if this has alreday been pointed out. I'm sure ABC didn't choose the "family of four with a $50,000 income" by chance. They likely chose it because it makes the 999 plan look bad.
Actually Cain picked the $50,000 income as it's the average according to his research.
Originally Posted by CoalCracker
Any meaningful tax reform plan that would put this country on a sound financial footing is going to require more than a 1.4% tax rate (or less) from the vast middle class. I'd be willing to pay more if it meant that my kids would not inherit a bankrupt, third-world country.
The U.S. has had the current income tax system for nearly 100 years and you only need to go back to the late 90s to see that we can have both a balance federal budget and a booming economy with the current tax system. The real problem in the U.S. is the millions of good jobs that have been shipped overseas in the last 25 years. The job loss has finally reached a critical mass and no stuck on stupid 999 tax plan is going to magically fix that problem. As the OP said, Cain is a one trick pony and even if elected, Congress will never pass 999 and we'll be stuck with another unprepared president.
The best way to keep the tax and spenders out of office via voting is to have everybody taxed, and everybodies money spent. Then people will actually start taking things seriously.
There's that class warfare again. It's the only card you have, isn't it, Komrade?
You don't read well at all, do you?
Dividend INCOME is taxed at 9%. It's just not double taxed.
Yet ordinary income is taxed at 9% and then again at 9%. So why should Warren Buffett and other wall street fat cats get a lower tax rate under Cain's plan than most other Americans?
Originally Posted by VAnimrod
Capital gains are not taxed, because the initial investment was already taxed as income; thus, no double taxation.
And yet you were find with double taxing a Roth IRA where the money put in was already taxed as income under the current system.
Looks like you doing class warfare yourself, Komrade.
Income is taxed at 9%, whether ordinary or dividend, and taxed again when spent.
Never said anything about a ROTH IRA being double taxed, and likely that'd be considered capital gains.
You and those like you have spent generations trying to destroy this nation by dividing people into classes and generations and pitting them against one another. It's almost worked, and likely still will.
You, and those like you, are the greatest disgrace to the United States and to free people that the world has ever known, and hopefully future generations will line up to piss on your graves. Assuming that they are not all in work camps that your ilk would have them assigned to...
As you all know if everyone was paid their gross income each pay period and had to send in the taxes, tax reform would happen overnight. If you ever had it in your hand you would realize how much money we are talking about.
I keep reading stuff like this.Then I look at my situation,where the wife and I make about the 50 k you use an illustration and we pay over 5K in income tax.
AND I'M IN THE GENERATION THAT SEAN WANTS TO " HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME".
Yep.
You and your wife make $50k. 9% of that is $4,500. The rest of what you pay in taxes depends upon how much you buy, and how you buy it.
Just like everyone else.
The first thing you need to realize that YOU , and I , are not typical of our generations.WE are among the BLESSED.
Did YOU have anything to do with being born to parents who would point you toward college and probably help you financially?
Did EITHER of US choose OUR intellects and physical abilities which allowed us to maybe earn more than the average guy and not have to barely scrape by in retirement?
You need to get off your high horse , MISTER , and understand that YOU ARE BLESSED -NOT SUPERIOR .
I haven't read the entire thread, and so I apologize if this has alreday been pointed out. I'm sure ABC didn't choose the "family of four with a $50,000 income" by chance. They likely chose it because it makes the 999 plan look bad.
Actually Cain picked the $50,000 income as it's the average according to his research.
Originally Posted by CoalCracker
Any meaningful tax reform plan that would put this country on a sound financial footing is going to require more than a 1.4% tax rate (or less) from the vast middle class. I'd be willing to pay more if it meant that my kids would not inherit a bankrupt, third-world country.
The U.S. has had the current income tax system for nearly 100 years and you only need to go back to the late 90s to see that we can have both a balance federal budget and a booming economy with the current tax system. The real problem in the U.S. is the millions of good jobs that have been shipped overseas in the last 25 years. The job loss has finally reached a critical mass and no stuck on stupid 999 tax plan is going to magically fix that problem. As the OP said, Cain is a one trick pony and even if elected, Congress will never pass 999 and we'll be stuck with another unprepared president.
And so for the grand sum of $706 per year, this hypothetical family of four should expect to receive the world's best national defense, free health care for their kids (i.e. S-CHIP), good roads and bridges, free health care for millions of the poor (i.e. Medicaid), a War on Drugs, farm subsidies, subsidized higher education (PELL grants and more tax credits), loan guarantees to Solyndra, and on and on.
Seems like this "stuff" would quickly add up to more than $706 per year. But, not to worry. We'll just put it on the national credit card and let our kids pick up the tab, plus interest - paid to China!
My parents never helped at all; they couldn't afford it. Hell, we barely had enough to pay bills, and quite frequently rotated between which bill to pay on what month just to have enough.
Never said I was superior. Only the same as every other American, and want to be treated and taxed like it; the same as every other American.
Why other folks continue to find excuses as to why they, or someone else, is so "special" to be considered and treated/taxed differently is beyond my conception of what it means to be an American.
Cain's plan is "exposed"? Goodness, he's doing all he can go get some exposure for it! And from nice 'neutral' source like ABC? Maybe you might find a source that isn't just a slice of the Democrat propaganda wing?
Cain's plan would shift taxes in a way that would make them transperant even to most of America's dummies who can't see how hidden taxes are eating them alive!
Ever notice that the Dems ALWAYS demonize the mean ol' rich and say they favor the 'working man'? But the system remains the same and the really rich give far more money to Dems than the competition so maybe there's something between what Dems say and what Dems do that isn't quite right? (Dwell on that a few minutes!)
All BOzo and company have to run on next year is racial demigoguery. It's going to be the worst slime and smear canpaign ever seen of whomever the Republican nominee is! But Cain has to be their worst nightmare; how can they rage that all non-BO voters are racist if we vote for an intelligent real black man instead of a bumbling, empty suit half breed?
Go Cain!
No need to believe ABC, just run the numbers yourself. You'll find that a couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see at least a $4,500 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
That's "transperant even to most of America's dummies who can't" figure their own taxes under Cain's plan.
You and those like you have spent generations trying to destroy this nation by dividing people into classes and generations and pitting them against one another. It's almost worked, and likely still will.
You, and those like you, are the greatest disgrace to the United States and to free people that the world has ever known, and hopefully future generations will line up to piss on your graves. Assuming that they are not all in work camps that your ilk would have them assigned to...
That's pretty cryptic...go ahead, don't hold back, tell him what you really think!....
I haven't read the entire thread, and so I apologize if this has alreday been pointed out. I'm sure ABC didn't choose the "family of four with a $50,000 income" by chance. They likely chose it because it makes the 999 plan look bad.
Actually Cain picked the $50,000 income as it's the average according to his research.
Originally Posted by CoalCracker
Any meaningful tax reform plan that would put this country on a sound financial footing is going to require more than a 1.4% tax rate (or less) from the vast middle class. I'd be willing to pay more if it meant that my kids would not inherit a bankrupt, third-world country.
The U.S. has had the current income tax system for nearly 100 years and you only need to go back to the late 90s to see that we can have both a balance federal budget and a booming economy with the current tax system. The real problem in the U.S. is the millions of good jobs that have been shipped overseas in the last 25 years. The job loss has finally reached a critical mass and no stuck on stupid 999 tax plan is going to magically fix that problem. As the OP said, Cain is a one trick pony and even if elected, Congress will never pass 999 and we'll be stuck with another unprepared president.
And so for the grand sum of $706 per year, this hypothetical family of four should expect to receive the world's best national defense, free health care for their kids (i.e. S-CHIP), good roads and bridges, free health care for millions of the poor (i.e. Medicaid), a War on Drugs, farm subsidies, subsidized higher education (PELL grants and more tax credits), loan guarantees to Solyndra, and on and on.
Seems like this "stuff" would quickly add up to more than $706 per year. But, not to worry. We'll just put it on the national credit card and let our kids pick up the tab, plus interest - paid to China!
As the people for Cain's plan like to point out, they also pay $3,825 in payroll taxes. Having kids may be a personal choice, but without the next generation of law abiding citizens our society will cease to exist. Maybe it's smart to invest a bit in kids.
Didn't save enough for your retirement and can't get by? Not my f'kin' problem; get a job.
Can't pay for your health care? Not my f'kin' problem; find a charity, rely on family, or die.
It's those very attitudes that come across to millions of hard working Americans in a bad way VA.
Millions of Americans will never, never be able to save for their retirement, and get by, without help (which is what Social Security was designed for). They work at Wal-Mart, Mazzio's, McDonald's, Best Buy, and other similar jobs because that's their station in life...through no fault of their own. They don't have the cognition, means (financial or otherwise), or ability (for many reasons that aren't their fault) to be upwardly moble to the degree that they can live, and save for their retirement. Period. But they work hard at the jobs that they do have nonetheless. They're dedicated, work 40 hours a week (often more), and do the best they can...like all the rest of us do. I'm not talking about welfare leeches who choose not to work...I'm talking about millions of hard working people in this country who simply don't, and won't, make enough money to save for their retirement as lots of us have. F'em?
And lots of these jobs held by these people I'm referring to do not provide insurance. They're having enough trouble paying to live...they have families too. No way they can pay for health care out of their pocket, especially if they require anything more than a check up. Chances are their families are gonna be in the same socioeconomic class as they are...so, not much help there. Especially for items like regular Rx. medications, or procedures and/or treatments. And God forbid they, or their spouse or one of their children, get a disease, like pancreatic cancer or brain cancer or liver failure or renal failure. Charities can help, some...but the needs of these unfortunate folks tremendously outweigh the charities available. A catastrophic illness or injury could make a pauper out of a rich man if he had to pay for those medical expenses out of his pocket. F'em? Die?
Didn't you just post on another thread, today, Bible verses about 'doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you' and 'loving your neighbor as yourself' and 'not speaking evil of others' and 'not judging others'?
I'd have other let me make my own way, and not leach off me, nor me off them. If they/I wanted to make a donation to charity to help out others, I/they'd ought to be able to, but I don't think anyone ever supports robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, except for socialists.
According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the average payer who actually paid taxes paid an average of 12.24 percent of his income in 2008.
Share of the Bottom 50 Percent
In 2008, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, ranked by income, paid an average tax rate of 2.59 percent. The median taxpayer reported an income of $33,048 on his tax return that year -- meaning that half of all filers reported income above that point and half reported income below it. All told, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid 2.7 percent of the total income tax revenue received in 2008. Conversely, the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 97 percent of the tax burden in 2008.
The Top 10 Percent
In 2008, 10 percent of the taxpayers paid 69.94 percent of the federal taxes, and paid an average of 18.71 percent of their income in taxes. To qualify for this group, you would have had to have earned at least $113,799 for the year.
The Top 5 Percent
Five percent of the taxpayers paid 58 percent of the tax bill in 2008, with an average tax rate of 20.7 percent, according to the IRS. This group earned at least $159,619 for the year.
The Top 1 Percent
One percent of the population paid 38.02 percent of the tax burden in 2008, and reported an average tax rate of 23.27 percent.
If the median wage is, as reported, $33k/year, and the average household in the U.S. is 1.4 wage earners per household (again, IRS data), then you have an median household income of $46,200/year.
In 2008, the IRS extorted $2.3T in taxes from the American population. Roughly $900B of that was from individual income taxes. An additional $875B was through Social Security/Medicare/FICA tax extortion.
So, let's do the math, shall we?
38% of that came from the top 1% of filers; thus, the Top 1% paid $341B in taxes.
The Top 5% (discounting what was paid by the Top 1%) paid 20% of that; $180B.
The next 5% (the Top 10%, minus contributions by the Top 5% and Top 1% already considered), paid roughly 12%, or $108B.
The BOTTOM 50%, 71MILLION households, with a combined income of $328,020,000,000 (that's $328B) paid only $24.3B in taxes, COMBINED.
The middle 40%, paid 27.3% of tax revenue, or $246B.
You want more taxes to increase revenue?
Fine.
We need $3.456T to cover the hole that Congress and the White House have spent us into over the last 11 years. Current tax receipts are at $2.162T. That would require a SIXTY PERCENT increase in tax revenue to generate the amount needed to cover the CURRENT budget (not including projected costs of Obamacare). Current individual income tax receipts are $899B, with SS adding another $865B, and corporate adding another $191B.
Let's assume you doubled corporate tax receipts to $382B. And, had no increases in SS taxation at all. That still leaves a budgetary shortfall of $1.103T. The only place that is going to come from is individual filers. And, that's a 122% increase over current individual tax rates; taking total combined individual tax payments to $2.002T.
151 million households filing taxes, with a median household income of $42,600/year, for total household income of $6,432,600,000,000 (that's $6.432T).
A flat 25% rate, across the board, top to bottom, would generate $1,608,150,000,000. $1.608T. Not enough.
How about a flat 30%? $1.929T. Nope, still not enough.
For .gov to hit the number, and JUST make budget THIS YEAR, with not projected increases in any years to come, they would have to double the corporate tax receipts, and raise the income tax level ON EVERY FILER (from the lowest 1% to the highest 1%) to 31.1%
And, STILL tax them on FICA/SS/Medicare, etc.
When you add those taxes in, you're at a VERY nearly 50% tax burden, ON EVERY TAX FILER IN THE COUNTRY....
And, we haven't even begun to discuss State income taxes, municipal taxes, school district taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes on gas and fuel oil, etc.
Starting to see the point, YET?
When the average tax PAYER (those that filed and PAID) paid only slightly more than 12% of their income in federal income taxes (not counting FICA/SS/Medicare, etc.), a near TRIPLING of that tax burden on EVERY tax payer just to make the CURRENT budget would be required. To make budget in years to come, that would have to further increase.
.gov could double the income tax rates on the top 1% (from 38% to 76%) and still not get to where Hussein is spending us.
.gov could double the income tax rates on the entire top 5%, with the top 1% paying 76% of their income in income taxes, and the rest of the top 5% averaging 41.4%, (that top 5% is any and every households making $159k/year or more, btw) and STILL not get to the break-even point for just this budget year.
The tax burden on the top 10% of filers could double across the board (Top 1% to 75%, next 4% to 41.4%, next 5% to 24%), and STILL not get there.
In fact, .gov could take the Top 1% to a 90% tax burden, and generate $807B...
Take the next 4% (including any households making $159k or more per year) to 82.5% (400% over their current payment percentage), and generate $720B...
And, take the next 5% (all those households of $113k+/year) to 55% (nearly TRIPLE their current rate) and generate $324B...
And STILL NOT COVER THE BUDGET!
In fact, it would require going to 90% on the Top 1%, 82.5% on the next 4% of households (those at $159k+/year), 55% on all households over $113k/year, and going up 150% on ALL THOSE BELOW, to even BARELY to cover the budget.
The problem isn't that the pool of taxpayers isn't being dipped into heavily enough.
The first thing you need to realize that YOU , and I , are not typical of our generations.WE are among the BLESSED.
Did YOU have anything to do with being born to parents who would point you toward college and probably help you financially?
Did EITHER of US choose OUR intellects and physical abilities which allowed us to maybe earn more than the average guy and not have to barely scrape by in retirement?
You need to get off your high horse , MISTER , and understand that YOU ARE BLESSED -NOT SUPERIOR .
Wow! That's some insight! What a refreshing perspective...different from the attitudes typically expressed here...but very refreshing indeed! Well said!
First, I think the 9-9-9 plan is a good idea on it's face and certainly worthy of discussion. My concerns are that a simple look at the numbers shows a fiscal shortfall.
Cain talks about the stimulative effect of the flattening and simplifying the tax system. I agree that there will be some of that (I honestly that just O getting booted out of office might kick off a bull market like the 30 year one kicked off in the early 80's). But I am very skeptical of these kind of revenue projections.
It needs to be combined with a BBA to have better creditability
Income is taxed at 9%, whether ordinary or dividend, and taxed again when spent.
Never said anything about a ROTH IRA being double taxed, and likely that'd be considered capital gains.
You and those like you have spent generations trying to destroy this nation by dividing people into classes and generations and pitting them against one another. It's almost worked, and likely still will.
You, and those like you, are the greatest disgrace to the United States and to free people that the world has ever known, and hopefully future generations will line up to piss on your graves. Assuming that they are not all in work camps that your ilk would have them assigned to...
So when you get put in a logical box you take the easy path of making personal attacks. That says a lot about you and nothing about me.
I don't support Cain's stuck on stupid 999 plan, a plan that could never pass, a plan that would guarantee Obama's reelection should Republicans pit Cain against Obama in the General.
You think the MSM won't be all over how Cain's plan increases taxes on retired folks? You really think most retired folks can afford a tax increase, and even if they could, that they would volt for it? Be honest.
There's lots I don't like about Romney, but he can beat Obama and neither Cain or Perry can. I'm just being pragmatic and understand that the nation can't recover until Obama is gone.
Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. Truly telling. MacLorry, since math seems to be an issue in this thread, let's start from scratch. You sir have just been elected president.... scratch that.. appointed king! You have a clean slate and unbridled power to inflict your will. What would you do sir, in regards to tax policy, to your subjects that you would then proclaim 'fair' or 'right' or whatever other term you feel adequate to desribe the new found panacea?
I haven't read this whole thread, but I have no problem with everyone regardless of economic status paying the same amount of tax. Where in hell did the notion come from that you should be rewarded for failure and punished for being successful in this country? I do understand that there are those that need help due to know fault of there own.
That's 71 million households (47%) paying NO income tax at all
And under Cain's plan they would pay at least the 9% sales tax. People don't vote for tax increases on themselves, particularly people who are just making ends meet now.
Are you a closet liberal who wants to see Obama reelected? If not, why are you supporting a Republican candidate who can't beat Obama?
VA, you can't just throw hard numbers up like that, you'll hurt those liberal feelers something awful...
Some people just can't get that it's really a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem, and that the spending levels we have gotten to now just keep choking any chance at real economic growth, and that lowering individual tax rates stimulates growth and job creation, which in turn gets more participants paying into the system, albeit at a lower per filer rate, and revenue actually goes up as a result....it's not really that complicated.
Yep, wanting to end class and generational warfare, having all Americans taxed equally, and actually doing something to solve the .gov system of punishing success while rewarding failure... on top of not handing future generations a failed state....
Yep, that's Obamunism support there.
You really are stupid, aren't you, Komrade Mac?
How about answering the numbers posted, and G-LSU's direct question?
Another thread that shows "Say it enough and it becomes true". Double taxing Roth income?!?! What?!?!?! Today - Roth contributions are TAXED at your current rate. The tax on the growth is defferred until you withdraw it at retirement and then it is TAXED at your income tax rate at retirement. So BEST case scenario today is you pay 10% on your dollars pre contribution and then 10% when you withdraw on your growth. Worst case is you pay 35% on your contribution dollars and 35% on the growth. Under 999 you pay 9% on pre contrib dollars and 9% on growth. Then a portion of your withdrawals IF you spend it on TAXABLE goods or services. Amazing.... for some people it'll be more and for some (probably MOST people with Roth funds since they likely fall into substantially higher income brackets than 10%) it'll be less. Gee.... it's almost like it's starting to level playing field. Heaven forbid!
Are you a closet liberal who wants to see Obama reelected? If not, why are you supporting a Republican candidate who can't beat Obama?
Who did you vote for last time and who are you now supporting and what is their plan to fix the current blatant inequity in our PROGRESSIVE tax system?
First, I think the 9-9-9 plan is a good idea on it's face and certainly worthy of discussion. My concerns are that a simple look at the numbers shows a fiscal shortfall.
Steve, every 'independent' analysis I've seen calls for it to be revenue neutral or very near (small shortfall or windfall). Personally, I HOPE there's a shortfall, to go hand in hand with a balanced budget amendment.
Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. Truly telling. MacLorry, since math seems to be an issue in this thread, let's start from scratch. You sir have just been elected president.... scratch that.. appointed king! You have a clean slate and unbridled power to inflict your will. What would you do sir, in regards to tax policy, to your subjects that you would then proclaim 'fair' or 'right' or whatever other term you feel adequate to desribe the new found panacea?
You said that if I gave you an example you would run the numbers for how much more or less tax they would pay under Cain's plan. Well I gave you the retired couple example.
It was your challenge, so where are the numbers you promised? Once we get those we may move on to the "what would you do" topic.
Yep, wanting to end class and generational warfare, having all Americans taxed equally, and actually doing something to solve the .gov system of punishing success while rewarding failure... on top of not handing future generations a failed state....
Yep, that's Obamunism support there.
You really are stupid, aren't you, Komrade Mac?
How about answering the numbers posted, and G-LSU's direct question?
So are you admitting your "having all Americans taxed equally" ideology would result in Obama's reelection?
Maybe you're young (mentally) and don't understand the concept of pragmatisms. Don't worry, when you grow up you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Yet ordinary income is taxed at 9% and then again at 9%. So why should Warren Buffett and other wall street fat cats get a lower tax rate under Cain's plan than most other Americans?
. my answer, cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us. I disagree with the premise, you've made more you should pay a higher percentage.
you're already going to pay more than me cause you have a higher income that's taxed at the same percentage.
I know folks on the bottom end of the income scale (right where I started) that love the current system, any tax they pay in they get most of it back and they are all for this gov't program and that gov't program if it benefits them or their friends.
you'll never get them to vote for a fiscal conservative, they want gov't programs and they want anyone besides themselves to fund it.
I thought one of the things that was supposed to make our country great is that we are all equal under the eyes of the law. How does that work with a progressive tax structure?
get everyone with skin in the game, and then our problems are all the same, gov't needs to put down the checkbook.
until that happens, expect the class warfare to continue.
Are you a closet liberal who wants to see Obama reelected? If not, why are you supporting a Republican candidate who can't beat Obama?
Who did you vote for last time and who are you now supporting and what is their plan to fix the current blatant inequity in our PROGRESSIVE tax system?
I never tell who I vote for as it would be a violation of principle of the secret ballot. Shame on you for asking.
I don't see the PROGRESSIVE tax system as the number one problem to fix. As I said in another reply, you only need to look back to the late 90s to see that we can have a balance federal budget, low unemployment and a growing economy with the current tax system. The real problem is 25 plus years of good jobs going overseas that has now reached a critical point. The next president can either spend their political capital on fixing the real problems that face this nation or spend it on trying to give tax relief to the highest income earners.
The '90s did NOT have a balanced budget, as the looming expenses of Social Security and Medicare were not calculated in. Those entitlements, when accounted for as every other business has to account for liabilities, have had us in the red for decades.
You should refer to SS as a mismanaged program that was stolen from, not an entitlement. I've been paying into that for a long time, and the money I'm suppose to get is unlikely to be there in another 20 years.
Still isn't an entitlement to me, more like forced wage confiscation. My 401k would look better had I been contributing what was taken for SS all my working years.
Yet ordinary income is taxed at 9% and then again at 9%. So why should Warren Buffett and other wall street fat cats get a lower tax rate under Cain's plan than most other Americans?
. my answer, cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us. I disagree with the premise, you've made more you should pay a higher percentage.
you're already going to pay more than me cause you have a higher income that's taxed at the same percentage.
I know folks on the bottom end of the income scale (right where I started) that love the current system, any tax they pay in they get most of it back and they are all for this gov't program and that gov't program if it benefits them or their friends.
you'll never get them to vote for a fiscal conservative, they want gov't programs and they want anyone besides themselves to fund it.
I thought one of the things that was supposed to make our country great is that we are all equal under the eyes of the law. How does that work with a progressive tax structure?
get everyone with skin in the game, and then our problems are all the same, gov't needs to put down the checkbook.
until that happens, expect the class warfare to continue.
You must have missed the part where under Cain's plan there's no income tax on capital gains. That means fat cats like Warren Buffett pay at a lower rate than ordinarily workers. Thus your comment that "cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us" is incorrect, because under Cain's system they would be at a lower percentage rate.
Coalcraker, you need to add in the payroll taxes to your figures too.
No, I do not. If you go back and read my list of items that the hypothetical family expects to receive for its $706 tax bill, you will notice that I did not mention Social Security or Medicare.
I do not lump the payroll taxes and income taxes together into funding the general operating expenses of the government. Those taxes were designed to support the SS and Medicare programs.
If you expect a federally-funded retirement and health care package starting when you are in you 60s, then expect to fund it separately through the payroll tax. Lumping them together only further obfuscates the real problems - and, again, puts my children on the hook for [bleep] that we can't afford.
The '90s did NOT have a balanced budget, as the looming expenses of Social Security and Medicare were not calculated in. Those entitlements, when accounted for as every other business has to account for liabilities, have had us in the red for decades.
You're the one working to get Obama reelected.
The numbers on Cain's plan is that it would reduce federal revenue and there's only hope the change would jump start the economy. We tried hope and change last time and I didn't fall for it then and won't fall for it now.
No need to believe ABC, just run the numbers yourself. You'll find that a couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see at least a $4,500 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
That's "transperant even to most of America's dummies who can't" figure their own taxes under Cain's plan.
I wish I had $50,000 in income. I have worked my butt off all my life. I have a college degree and never broke 40,000 in income. I just retired form a job where the average work week aw between 55 and 65 hours and I still never broke the 40,000 mark. I am now retired and get $1,244 a month. I would gladly pay my fair share of taxes. And I sure as hell would never bitch and cry about having to only pay 18% of a 50,000 income.
You've now got the power to solve all the nation's economic problems. What do you do?
Don't you think GeauxLSU can deal with his own posts? I'm waiting for him to post the numbers he promised. Of course of you or he wants to concede that Cain's plan raises taxes on most of the middle-class then maybe we can do the "what would you do" shtick.
Do you conced the point or just have more distractions or personal attacks to throw up?
I'm not concerned with G-LSU's post. I gave you the hard and fast numbers directly from the IRS, and the problem is evident. I want to hear your solution.
Didn't save enough for your retirement and can't get by? Not my f'kin' problem; get a job.
Can't pay for your health care? Not my f'kin' problem; find a charity, rely on family, or die.
I would if I could. I did save for retirement but then got hurt and had to live on my retirement.
I have not had insurance in over 15 years. Don't have insurance now. If I get real sick the dieing is my only option. That's fine with me. I am pretty sick of the fighting anyway. When I die the everyday all day pain will finally be gone. Not bitching, just telling it like it is.
No need to believe ABC, just run the numbers yourself. You'll find that a couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see at least a $4,500 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
That's "transperant even to most of America's dummies who can't" figure their own taxes under Cain's plan.
I wish I had $50,000 in income. I have worked my butt off all my life. I have a college degree and never broke 40,000 in income. I just retired form a job where the average work week aw between 55 and 65 hours and I still never broke the 40,000 mark. I am now retired and get $1,244 a month. I would gladly pay my fair share of taxes. And I sure as hell would never bitch and cry about having to only pay 18% of a 50,000 income.
So on your $1,244 a month income you are fine with paying another $223 per month in taxes. And you do so because you feel it's unfair for someone making a 50,000 income to pay that much more a month.
Ok, I'll accept you have a great sense of fairness. But tell me, of the 50 million plus retired folks, do you think many will vote for such a tax increase on themselves? Be honest.
Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. ....
Or maybe threads like these are great at showing the stupidity of many here.
Folks will support this idiotic plan, which by the way doesn't have a chance in hell of passing, even though all it's doing is shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans to the middle and lower classes. That means most here are supporting a plan that gives the government more of their money because the majority here sure as hell don't fall into the top tier income levels.
Instead of supporting a candidate who wants to get rid of income taxes altogether by reducing govt spending to the year 2000 level, we argue over these differing tax plan schemes. Flat tax, fair tax, 999,...I could give a schitt.
Just different plans politicians will sell the gullible who are too stupid to realize it does nothing to reduce government tax revenues or reduce our debt(unless they find a hidden way to increase taxes). Yet folks will blindly support such stupidity based on what a friggin' politician tells them.
Good grief, one's tax liability is based on the total of everything the government takes. Like it or not payroll taxes have been put into the general fund and used by the general fund for quite some time now.
Any fair tax plan needs to look at totality of what the federal government takes out of peoples wallets, not just a slice of it. Since Cain's 999 plan eliminates the payroll taxes, it is germane to conversation. Your failure to include it is telling that you don't really want to discuss the actual fairness of payroll taxes in the this discussion.
My recollection from the last time I looked into government revenue, individual income taxes accounted 980 billion in gov. revenue in 2010, payroll taxes brought 810 billion in government revenue. Payroll taxes make up a big slice of the pie.
I'm not concerned with G-LSU's post. I gave you the hard and fast numbers directly from the IRS, and the problem is evident. I want to hear your solution.
It would appear that you have no solution at all.
The numbers on Cain's plan are that it would reduce federal revenues and make the problem even worse, so that idea could be eliminated off the top.
I've read Ryan's plan. A more blouted, overly hyped, blow-sunshine-up-politician's-asses, pipedream I can't recall seeing. It's simply a continuance of the current shell game, does nothing to get every American involved in the system, continues having .gov determine winners/losers based upon a convoluted tax code that promotes class and generational warfare, and gives Congress the perpetual power to tinker with it in order to cover their asses.
even though all it's doing is shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans to the middle and lower classes.
Should I insert a link to the tune of the Communist International melody here? I mean really, just because I am fortunate or smart or whatever that I make money means I have to pay MORE so 47-50% of my countrymen can pay NONE? GMAFB. Equality and fairness is for commies and metrosexuals...
.....I mean really, just because I am fortunate or smart or whatever that I make money means I have to pay MORE so 47-50% of my countrymen can pay NONE?....
Hogwash.
In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.
Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.
As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.
The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.
I wish I had $50,000 in income. I have worked my butt off all my life. I have a college degree and never broke 40,000 in income. I just retired form a job where the average work week aw between 55 and 65 hours and I still never broke the 40,000 mark. I am now retired and get $1,244 a month. I would gladly pay my fair share of taxes. And I sure as hell would never bitch and cry about having to only pay 18% of a 50,000 income.
So on your $1,244 a month income you are fine with paying another $223 per month in taxes. And you do so because you feel it's unfair for someone making a 50,000 income to pay that much more a month.
Ok, I'll accept you have a great sense of fairness. But tell me, of the 50 million plus retired folks, do you think many will vote for such a tax increase on themselves? Be honest.
Not going to pay anywhere near that. Our half of the farm mortgage is $850, phone, car insurance is and such $280. All of these would not have sales tax. That leaves only 144 a month for food and fun and food may or may not be taxed.
Add in sales taxes, gas taxes, income taxes, Medicare taxes, property taxes, state taxes, school district taxes, telephone service taxes, and all the others.
Guessing doesn't get you there, but they studied it, and published their numbers. If you're going to refute them, doing so with numbers might be a good place to start.
Nonsense. We ALL pay ALL those taxes in addition to the oppressive tax rates we currently have. A tas System like the Fair Tax, is a tax on what we spend, so if I want to buy a friggin yacht I pay the tax and if I don't I leave the money where it can gain dividends and not get screwed with double taxation when I liquidate my profits. With a FT, payroll, medicare etc would all go away. Given the source (MSN) I'm sure they can manipulate whatever they want to keep this farce going. This isn't worth my time but I'm sure I can dig up an equally opposing article--from a credible source, refuting that BS>
..... Given the source (MSN) I'm sure they can manipulate whatever they want to keep this farce going. This isn't worth my time but I'm sure I can dig up an equally opposing article--from a credible source, refuting that BS>
Please do and don't forget to include all taxes.
And the source was the National Bureau of Economic Research, not MSN.
Nonsense. We ALL pay ALL those taxes in addition to the oppressive tax rates we currently have. A tas System like the Fair Tax, is a tax on what we spend, so if I want to buy a friggin yacht I pay the tax and if I don't I leave the money where it can gain dividends and not get screwed with double taxation when I liquidate my profits. With a FT, payroll, medicare etc would all go away. Given the source (MSN) I'm sure they can manipulate whatever they want to keep this farce going. This isn't worth my time but I'm sure I can dig up an equally opposing article--from a credible source, refuting that BS>
The paper that isaac is claiming to be false, actually supports your position. If you'd care to look at it prior to ranting.
Are you a closet liberal who wants to see Obama reelected? If not, why are you supporting a Republican candidate who can't beat Obama?
Who did you vote for last time and who are you now supporting and what is their plan to fix the current blatant inequity in our PROGRESSIVE tax system?
I never tell who I vote for as it would be a violation of principle of the secret ballot. Shame on you for asking.
I don't see the PROGRESSIVE tax system as the number one problem to fix. As I said in another reply, you only need to look back to the late 90s to see that we can have a balance federal budget, low unemployment and a growing economy with the current tax system. The real problem is 25 plus years of good jobs going overseas that has now reached a critical point. The next president can either spend their political capital on fixing the real problems that face this nation or spend it on trying to give tax relief to the highest income earners.
So you don't want to admit who you voted for and you continue with the "Buffet pays less than his secretary" democrat talking points. OK, I'll be left to painfully wonder until my earthly departure I guess. The 'real' problem as you put is jobs going overseas? Really? And WHY do those jobs go overseas?........ (If you say 'slave labor', we can just go our separate ways on this issue. )
You've now got the power to solve all the nation's economic problems. What do you do?
Don't you think GeauxLSU can deal with his own posts? I'm waiting for him to post the numbers he promised. Of course of you or he wants to concede that Cain's plan raises taxes on most of the middle-class then maybe we can do the "what would you do" shtick.
Do you conced the point or just have more distractions or personal attacks to throw up?
Mac, I confess keeping up with all the incorrect statements in this thread is difficult coupled with trying to actually get some work done and a killer cold so sorry if I missed your question. I think you asked if a couple with earnings who currently pays not tax would pay tax under 999. The answer is yes. Everybody will pay the same rate on their earnings and everybody will pay the same rate on their dividends. No deductions (except charitable contributions).
The paper that isaac is claiming to be false =================
I never claimed any such thing. I stated their data was incorrect. There are many states who don't even impose many of the taxes stated and I certainly am not going to get all warm and fuzzy over a Cambridge Mass group of economists.
Actually,you haven't a clue as to what it says or means. I just did refute it with facts. A married couple in Virginia making a combined 20K a year pay nowhere near 10K in taxes. Don't believe it,you run the numbers,I ain't doing your legwork.
It's been common knowledge for just about forever that the "best" tax system is one with a broad base and a low rate. It's the fairest, easiest to administer, most efficient tax system out there. Ask any economist who is honest and not being political, and 99% of them would have to agree.
"Unfortunately", such a system is not necessarily best at picking winners and losers, engineering societal behavior, buying votes, bribing the populace, etc., which is the only real reason we have our current system. It is the creation of politicians - not real economists.
Actually,you haven't a clue as to what it says or means. I just did refute it with facts. A married couple in Virginia making a combined 20K a year pay nowhere near 10K in taxes. Don't believe it,you run the numbers,I ain't doing your legwork.
Considering that I have read the damned thing, and you haven't, I'd suspect you're bass-ackwards on the first assumption.
Gas taxes, property taxes, telephone use taxes, meals taxes, school taxes, local taxes, state taxes.... it all adds up. Run the damned numbers, all of them, and prove their numbers wrong and your assertion right.
[quote=GeauxLSU]Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. Truly telling. MacLorry, since math seems to be an issue in this thread, let's start from scratch. You sir have just been elected president.... scratch that.. appointed king! You have a clean slate and unbridled power to inflict your will. What would you do sir, in regards to tax policy, to your subjects that you would then proclaim 'fair' or 'right' or whatever other term you feel adequate to desribe the new found panacea? [/quote You said that if I gave you an example you would run the numbers for how much more or less tax they would pay under Cain's plan. Well I gave you the retired couple example.
It was your challenge, so where are the numbers you promised? Once we get those we may move on to the "what would you do" topic.
]Hopefully you got your answer. Mythical couple paying zero goes to paying 9% on taxable earnings and 9% on taxable purchases.
Ok, so the Ryan plan is what King Lorry with unlimited power would implement? Really? You can do ANYTHING, you are king, and that's what you choose?
Again, we're arguing over shifting the burden of taxes rather than supporting less govt to reduce all our taxes.
Politicians are good at getting us to focus on the wrong damn thing.
10000% in agreement.
Yeah, let's not actually look at Cain's full slate of economic proposals (which calls for a reduction in the size and spending of .gov), let's just say it won't work and continue with the same system.
I think the masses will reject it because everyone has to pay an equal amount to do it...when everyone hasn't benefitted equally from the system.
I haven't made it all the way through this thread yet and maybe this has been addressed. I heard on the radio, Maybe Glen Beck, that in the 9-9-9 plan there are exemptions for inter-city residents, what ever that is. They did not talk about it other than mentioning it. miles
Again, we're arguing over shifting the burden of taxes rather than supporting less govt to reduce all our taxes.
Politicians are good at getting us to focus on the wrong damn thing.
10000% in agreement.
Yeah, let's not actually look at Cain's full slate of economic proposals (which calls for a reduction in the size and spending of .gov), let's just say it won't work and continue with the same system.
"Unfortunately", such a system is not necessarily best at picking winners and losers, engineering societal behavior, buying votes, bribing the populace, etc., which is the only real reason we have our current system. It is the creation of politicians - not real economists.
Every now and then in these type threads wading through all the garbage to find a sole soul that gets it makes it worth while. Exactly 100% correct CC.
Gas taxes, property taxes, telephone use taxes, meals taxes, school taxes, local taxes, state taxes.... it all adds up. Run the damned numbers, all of them, and prove their numbers wrong and your assertion right. ===================
If you did read it,you'd have simply seen that it is a flawed data analysis to try to take the aberrations of states like Mass,NY,Conn and California and in any way try to stretch it into a national average when over 2/3rds of the states are nowhere near those state taxing abominations.That's one. Next,I've already told you Va married couples pay nothing near that average so why would I even give a schit for someone who attempts to argue that since NY does this,my average in Va is that. It's a numbers game and you easily bought into it.
Again, we're arguing over shifting the burden of taxes rather than supporting less govt to reduce all our taxes. Politicians are good at getting us to focus on the wrong damn thing.
No, we're not ALL arguing over that. A select few have a problem with an equalization of the current tax system. But to your point 999 is a tax (revenue) only plan which is the point of the thread. However Mr. Cain clearly and consistently advocates a material reduction in government spending.
Cain also stated the plan is subject to modification so if it turns out 11-11-11 is a better way to establish the burden,I feel most will be just fine with that.
The crux of the problem is the votes needed for repeal.
Question, would this tax plan mean that if I wanted to buy a house, it would cost me another 9%? What if I wanted to buy a new car and pay cash for it, another 9%? Groceries, another 9%? Utilities, another 9%? Medical, another 9%?
No, I haven't read the plan which is why I am asking here.
You are 30% communist. If someone has wealth that they put at risk in a market evironment, they should never be taxed for this. Never. By the same token, under 999, if they lost, there would be no loss carry-forward that they have today. If I buy a farm and sell it ten years later for twice what I paid for it, why in the Sam Hill should I be taxed? Because I created wealth? Graduated income tax and taxes on wealth are communist i origin. Period. No debating this.
Originally Posted by MacLorry
Originally Posted by 2legit2quit
Originally Posted by MacLorry
Yet ordinary income is taxed at 9% and then again at 9%. So why should Warren Buffett and other wall street fat cats get a lower tax rate under Cain's plan than most other Americans?
. my answer, cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us. I disagree with the premise, you've made more you should pay a higher percentage.
you're already going to pay more than me cause you have a higher income that's taxed at the same percentage.
I know folks on the bottom end of the income scale (right where I started) that love the current system, any tax they pay in they get most of it back and they are all for this gov't program and that gov't program if it benefits them or their friends.
you'll never get them to vote for a fiscal conservative, they want gov't programs and they want anyone besides themselves to fund it.
I thought one of the things that was supposed to make our country great is that we are all equal under the eyes of the law. How does that work with a progressive tax structure?
get everyone with skin in the game, and then our problems are all the same, gov't needs to put down the checkbook.
until that happens, expect the class warfare to continue.
You must have missed the part where under Cain's plan there's no income tax on capital gains. That means fat cats like Warren Buffett pay at a lower rate than ordinarily workers. Thus your comment that "cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us" is incorrect, because under Cain's system they would be at a lower percentage rate.
I told you I would get Paul Ryan's plan passed. I'm sure he knows a lot more about how to fix the economy than anyone posting on 24hr including you.
You're goal is not to fix the economy, but to scrap the current tax system. There's no evidence that a flat tax or even a partial flat tax like Cain's plan would get the economy growing and without a growing economy there's no way to fix the debt problem.
Looks like you�re willing to vote for hope and change, again.
Cain also stated the plan is subject to modification so if it turns out 11-11-11 is a better way to establish the burden,I feel most will be just bfine with that.
The crux of the problem is the votes needed for repeal.
As Michell Bachman pointed out, only a fool gives Congress another revenue stream to spend. Once they have it they never give it up.
Herman Cain claims that his plan is revenue neutral because it does away with the existing tax code. The problem is it DOES NOT do away with income tax . It is still there. Basically ,we go from 2 taxes (Individual and corporate income tax) to 3. Not good given congresses track record on taxation over the last 150 years.
The national sales tax, IMHO kill consumption of goods before any long term benefits will be seen in the private sector as to jobs. It's a 9 percent increase in the cost of EVERYTHING we buy.
Actually, if he wants 27% of the revenue from the US economy ,he should just be honest and make it a FLAT income tax at 13.5% across the board for both individuals and corporations- with NO deductions.
Cain also stated the plan is subject to modification so if it turns out 11-11-11 is a better way to establish the burden,I feel most will be just fine with that.
The crux of the problem is the votes needed for repeal.
Yes, but if it turns into x-x-x EVERYONE would know. Today, it changes and nobody knows. Hence the creep. I've often said we should do away with witholding and make every working American actually write a check each week for their federal taxes and mail it in. THEN you'd see some awakening. People have ZERO clue what they pay right now. "Hey I got a refund check this year! I didn't 'pay' taxes, I got money back!" God help us.....
I think it means any used car,regardless of from who or where purchased. Of course,we know very little about the details now. I think we're all simply trying to get a handle on the general concepts...at least I am,anyways.
I wish I had $50,000 in income. I have worked my butt off all my life. I have a college degree and never broke 40,000 in income. I just retired form a job where the average work week aw between 55 and 65 hours and I still never broke the 40,000 mark. I am now retired and get $1,244 a month. I would gladly pay my fair share of taxes. And I sure as hell would never bitch and cry about having to only pay 18% of a 50,000 income.
So on your $1,244 a month income you are fine with paying another $223 per month in taxes. And you do so because you feel it's unfair for someone making a 50,000 income to pay that much more a month.
Ok, I'll accept you have a great sense of fairness. But tell me, of the 50 million plus retired folks, do you think many will vote for such a tax increase on themselves? Be honest.
Not going to pay anywhere near that. Our half of the farm mortgage is $850, phone, car insurance is and such $280. All of these would not have sales tax. That leaves only 144 a month for food and fun and food may or may not be taxed.
Now tell me again how hard you have it.
So you were all for the new tax thinking you wouldn't have to pay much or any of it. Well what makes you think "the mortgage, phone, car insurance and such" would be exempt from Cain's NEW federal flat sales tax?
There's nothing on Cain's web site saying anything would be exempt and the only thing Cain has said would be exempt from his sales tax are used items. You might not even have your $144 a month for food and fun under Cain's plan, but as long as it's fair you�re ok with it, right?
Don't worry, Santorum was right, there's no way 999 could pass Congress even if Cain became President.
I told you I would get Paul Ryan's plan passed. I'm sure he knows a lot more about how to fix the economy than anyone posting on 24hr including you.
You're goal is not to fix the economy, but to scrap the current tax system. There's no evidence that a flat tax or even a partial flat tax like Cain's plan would get the economy growing and without a growing economy there's no way to fix the debt problem.
Looks like you�re willing to vote for hope and change, again.
You remain, an idiot.
Ryan's plan is the same shell game, rebadged. It fixes nothing, just kicks the can down the road.
I know enough to run the actual numbers and present a solution that addresses those numbers. Something you, nor Ryan, will do.
How do we get past the near insurmountable repeal concern?
Honestly, what is commonly referred to as "The Fair Tax" or a nation sales tax is not my first choice, BUT..... to answer your question... I think once congress sees that that particular '9' (sales tax) is delivering the revenue they 'need' then the repeal issues is at least that one step closer. The bigger issue, and this is really the issue with 999 or ANY no deduction type plan or any plan that eliminates preferential treatment for any group, is the fact that it neuters a large part of their (Congress') power. Wheter it's the repeal or simply going flat tax no deduction, THAT is the real hurdle. I really think people underestimate why we have the current disaster of a tax code that we have. It is by DESIGN. It is designed by politicians FOR politicians. The fact the TEA party mentality produced actual election results is really our only hope with helping those that reside in DC see "the light".
[quote=GeauxLSU]Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. Truly telling. MacLorry, since math seems to be an issue in this thread, let's start from scratch. You sir have just been elected president.... scratch that.. appointed king! You have a clean slate and unbridled power to inflict your will. What would you do sir, in regards to tax policy, to your subjects that you would then proclaim 'fair' or 'right' or whatever other term you feel adequate to desribe the new found panacea? [/quote You said that if I gave you an example you would run the numbers for how much more or less tax they would pay under Cain's plan. Well I gave you the retired couple example.
It was your challenge, so where are the numbers you promised? Once we get those we may move on to the "what would you do" topic.
]Hopefully you got your answer. Mythical couple paying zero goes to paying 9% on taxable earnings and 9% on taxable purchases.
Ok, so the Ryan plan is what King Lorry with unlimited power would implement? Really? You can do ANYTHING, you are king, and that's what you choose?
Ok, you concede that Cain's plan would raise taxes on what you call the mythical couple, but they are not so mythical, it's virtually all retired folks who don't have a high taxable income. Once retired folks understand this, Cain's on his way out. I want to see him go before it's a choice between Cain and Obama, otherwise, Obama gets a second term. Is that what you want?
Like your hero Cain stated, you surround yourself with the best people in each area. Paul Ryan has a much better plan being it's actually doable and it gets us on the right track to growing the economy and solving the debt problem.
No tax on services.New car?..yes;used car?..no;new house?...good question.
I've been looking to find where Cain lists what his sales tax would exempt, but only found that used items would be exempt. Is there a link the specifics?
[quote=GeauxLSU]Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. Truly telling. MacLorry, since math seems to be an issue in this thread, let's start from scratch. You sir have just been elected president.... scratch that.. appointed king! You have a clean slate and unbridled power to inflict your will. What would you do sir, in regards to tax policy, to your subjects that you would then proclaim 'fair' or 'right' or whatever other term you feel adequate to desribe the new found panacea? [/quote You said that if I gave you an example you would run the numbers for how much more or less tax they would pay under Cain's plan. Well I gave you the retired couple example.
It was your challenge, so where are the numbers you promised? Once we get those we may move on to the "what would you do" topic.
]Hopefully you got your answer. Mythical couple paying zero goes to paying 9% on taxable earnings and 9% on taxable purchases.
Ok, so the Ryan plan is what King Lorry with unlimited power would implement? Really? You can do ANYTHING, you are king, and that's what you choose?
Ok, you concede that Cain's plan would raise taxes on what you call the mythical couple, but they are not so mythical, it's virtually all retired folks who don't have a high taxable income. Once retired folks understand this, Cain's on his way out. I want to see him go before it's a choice between Cain and Obama, otherwise, Obama gets a second term. Is that what you want?
Like your hero Cain stated, you surround yourself with the best people in each area. Paul Ryan has a much better plan being it's actually doable and it gets us on the right track to growing the economy and solving the debt problem.
Is Paul Ryan running for president? If 999 won't pass then fine, Ryan can get his plan passed in the Cain adminstration so you'll be happy. If you are suggesting (which apparently you are) that retired folks will vote for Obama (because of 999) despite what has happened to their retirement savings, 401's, and home values, (aka the inheritence many planned to leave to their kids) over Cain... well sir.... we just have a different level of confidence in the intelligence of retired Americans. I will admit, you as a retired American (I think you said?) have tempered that faith I have in my fellow Americans one generation up. Very thankful for the greater number of other retired Americans in this thread who have clearly shown a POV devoid of short sightedness or self centered concerns. I'm guessing they'll be voting in November too in larger numbers than the opposing AARP members.
No tax on services.New car?..yes;used car?..no;new house?...good question.
I've been looking to find where Cain lists what his sales tax would exempt, but only found that used items would be exempt. Is there a link the specifics?
Almost assuredly not. For purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming commonly (sale) taxed items would be subjected to it. Yes I realize it's different by state. In general, if you pay a cashier, I'm assuming it's taxed.
I told you I would get Paul Ryan's plan passed. I'm sure he knows a lot more about how to fix the economy than anyone posting on 24hr including you.
You're goal is not to fix the economy, but to scrap the current tax system. There's no evidence that a flat tax or even a partial flat tax like Cain's plan would get the economy growing and without a growing economy there's no way to fix the debt problem.
Looks like you�re willing to vote for hope and change, again.
You remain, an idiot.
Ryan's plan is the same shell game, rebadged. It fixes nothing, just kicks the can down the road.
I know enough to run the actual numbers and present a solution that addresses those numbers. Something you, nor Ryan, will do.
You're obviously not qualified to judge Paul Ryan's plan. You don't even know what numbers to run let along how to come up with the answers. If you knew so much you would have never doubted how Cain's plan would raise taxes on retired people, and knowing that you would have known Cain can't beat Obama.
Keep it up, you're only proving that you really hope Obama wins his second term.
Cain also stated the plan is subject to modification so if it turns out 11-11-11 is a better way to establish the burden,I feel most will be just fine with that.
The crux of the problem is the votes needed for repeal.
Yep.The way it is now,the 50% who pay taxes could [theoretically] change the deal.
Under 999 , the 1/3 [plus one] who might benefit from the deal could keep it going.Reckon it will be us ordinary folks in the favored 1/3?
[quote=GeauxLSU]Threads like this are great to expose the socialist underbelly of 'conservatives'. Truly telling. MacLorry, since math seems to be an issue in this thread, let's start from scratch. You sir have just been elected president.... scratch that.. appointed king! You have a clean slate and unbridled power to inflict your will. What would you do sir, in regards to tax policy, to your subjects that you would then proclaim 'fair' or 'right' or whatever other term you feel adequate to desribe the new found panacea? [/quote You said that if I gave you an example you would run the numbers for how much more or less tax they would pay under Cain's plan. Well I gave you the retired couple example.
It was your challenge, so where are the numbers you promised? Once we get those we may move on to the "what would you do" topic.
]Hopefully you got your answer. Mythical couple paying zero goes to paying 9% on taxable earnings and 9% on taxable purchases.
Ok, so the Ryan plan is what King Lorry with unlimited power would implement? Really? You can do ANYTHING, you are king, and that's what you choose?
Ok, you concede that Cain's plan would raise taxes on what you call the mythical couple, but they are not so mythical, it's virtually all retired folks who don't have a high taxable income. Once retired folks understand this, Cain's on his way out. I want to see him go before it's a choice between Cain and Obama, otherwise, Obama gets a second term. Is that what you want?
Like your hero Cain stated, you surround yourself with the best people in each area. Paul Ryan has a much better plan being it's actually doable and it gets us on the right track to growing the economy and solving the debt problem.
Is Paul Ryan running for president? If 999 won't pass then fine, Ryan can get his plan passed in the Cain adminstration so you'll be happy. If you are suggesting (which apparently you are) that retired folks will vote for Obama (because of 999) despite what has happened to their retirement savings, 401's, and home values, (aka the inheritence many planned to leave to their kids) over Cain... well sir.... we just have a different level of confidence in the intelligence of retired Americans. I will admit, you as a retired American (I think you said?) have tempered that faith I have in my fellow Americans one generation up. Very thankful for the greater number of other retired Americans in this thread who have clearly shown a POV devoid of short sightedness or self centered concerns. I'm guessing they'll be voting in November too in larger numbers than the opposing AARP members.
Once again you're jumping to the conclusions that Cain's plan would get the economy growing. There is absolutely zero evidence to back that up, so there's no help for lost retirement savings, 401's, and home values. All that's for sure is that most retired folks will face a tax increase under Cain's plan and those not falling for the hope and change shtick again won't vote for Cain.
BTW, there's no death tax on estates of less than 5 million, so folks with that kind of money can do like Steve Jobs did and transfer their money to a trust that can then give it to their children with no death tax. Smart guy that Steve Jobs.
BTW, there's no death tax on estates of less than 5 million, so folks with that kind of money can do like Steve Jobs did and transfer their money to a trust that can then give it to their children with no death tax. Smart guy that Steve Jobs.
You miss the point. I never mentioned 'death tax'. I meant, the vast majority of retired American's next worth has plummented under this adminstration so they will have far less to leave as inheritance. I would hope hte vast majority of retired Americans (socialists not withstanding) are looking forward to President's Obama immediate unemployment.
Again I ask. If this is wrong what is the right answer.
The focus needs to be on creating jobs and getting the economy rolling again.
If tax increases are needed to bring the deficit monster under control then that burden needs to shared by everyone, not just shifted from one economic class to another.
What are these "Empowerment Zones" that he talks about? It says if you live/work in them you get some sort of tax break.
AMH, The only example I've heard him mention was Detroit. I think 'empowerment zones' are a very slippery slope but he did mention they'd be temporary which, like most things, is founded in logic and good intentions. But when logic and good intentions hit D.C. they tend to get mutated.
I will admit to not knowing everything about 999 like others claim to. I do like the idea of a fair tax but, If everything is a simple 9% minus a few exemptions, like charitable contributions, what will be the snow ball effect of this? If I am reading things right I would have no reason to use a tax preparer or advise a tax lawyer any longer correct? There would not need to be half of the people now working for the IRS (this would be a plus).
BTW, there's no death tax on estates of less than 5 million, so folks with that kind of money can do like Steve Jobs did and transfer their money to a trust that can then give it to their children with no death tax. Smart guy that Steve Jobs.
You miss the point. I never mentioned 'death tax'. I meant, the vast majority of retired American's next worth has plummented under this adminstration so they will have far less to leave as inheritance. I would hope hte vast majority of retired Americans (socialists not withstanding) are looking forward to President's Obama immediate unemployment.
I also hope Obama is a 1 termer, but the way to ensure he wins a second term is to put him up against a guy who's going to raise taxes on the middle class and retired folks. It will be a landslide victory for Obama, so much so that he'll claim a mandate to screw up the economy even more.
this 999 stuff is a pipe dream guys. there is no way it would get past both houses because it would mean the end of the IRS as we know it and they will not do that to their own. it sounds good (i suppose) on paper but it won't happen. and cain is so revolutionary in his thinking, for lack of a better term, that if he was somehow elected, none of his ideas would pass. these crooks in washington will not eat their own face. like it or not, we are in for the SOS for the forseeable future. no miracles, just more BS government style. hang onto your hats and try to save your money.
A balanced budget amendment.If we had THAT , taxes and spending would sort itself out.
It works in the states.
Of course, that's Perry's position so it obviously ain't worth a damn in some minds for that reason alone.
FWIW,a good dog don't care who owns him,and a good idea don't care who has it.
Which candidate or rational thinking American is NOT in favor of a balanced budget amendment?
I don't know.I DO know the one who has emphasized it and made it central to his economic plan.Of course , he has also said that S.S. is unsustainable as currently structured , and that Ben Bernanke wouldn't be treated nice in Texas.
Just another RINO in other words.The ones who avoid straight talk,you know.
I think your right with the slippery slope comment, sounds like an area where "welfare recipients" are known to exist, if you know what I mean.
The real issue is preferential tax treatment for 'impoverished areas' should simply be left to the states and municipalities to address. As a Georgian, why should I have to pay to help Detroit? And vice versa. But again, nobody has the perfect solution and no candidate is perfect. In balance, Mr. Cain, and his plans in balance are ahead of the pack IMO.
A balanced budget amendment.If we had THAT , taxes and spending would sort itself out.
It works in the states.
Of course, that's Perry's position so it obviously ain't worth a damn in some minds for that reason alone.
FWIW,a good dog don't care who owns him,and a good idea don't care who has it.
Which candidate or rational thinking American is NOT in favor of a balanced budget amendment?
I don't know.I DO know the one who has emphasized it and made it central to his economic plan.Of course , he has also said that S.S. is unsustainable as currently structured , and that Ben Bernanke wouldn't be treated nice in Texas.
Just another RINO in other words.The ones who avoid straight talk,you know.
Cur, with the possible exception of Romney (and that's probably unfair to him) they've all said basically the same thing.
I will admit to not knowing everything about 999 like others claim to. I do like the idea of a fair tax but, If everything is a simple 9% minus a few exemptions, like charitable contributions, what will be the snow ball effect of this? If I am reading things right I would have no reason to use a tax preparer or advise a tax lawyer any longer correct? There would not need to be half of the people now working for the IRS (this would be a plus).
Correct. Funny thing is, I admitted defeat about 7 or so years ago (maybe more) and started using a CPA to do my taxes. She has told me uneqivocably that she supports a flat income tax knowing full well it would end her career.
I also hope Obama is a 1 termer, but the way to ensure he wins a second term is to put him up against a guy who's going to raise taxes on the middle class and retired folks. It will be a landslide victory for Obama, so much so that he'll claim a mandate to screw up the economy even more.
Hope and $5 will get you something to drink at Starbucks (I guess, never been in one). So what are you going to do if Cain wins the nomination?
Cur, with the possible exception of Romney (and that's probably unfair to him) they've all said basically the same thing.
And THEY have been saying it for a long time.
Perry make's it the centerpiece of his economic platform and pledges to introduce legislation- THAT WILL PASS- to achieve it.
Surely you are not suggesting he is the only one that will support a BBA? Or are you suggesting he is the only one that can make it happen by some sheer force of will?
I will admit to not knowing everything about 999 like others claim to. I do like the idea of a fair tax but, If everything is a simple 9% minus a few exemptions, like charitable contributions, what will be the snow ball effect of this? If I am reading things right I would have no reason to use a tax preparer or advise a tax lawyer any longer correct? There would not need to be half of the people now working for the IRS (this would be a plus).
Correct. Funny thing is, I admitted defeat about 7 or so years ago (maybe more) and started using a CPA to do my taxes. She has told me uneqivocably that she supports a flat income tax knowing full well it would end her career.
I'm not so sure about that. Even the 999 plan calls for an "income" tax. At least in the case of businesses, this would likely be net income, not gross income (i.e. gross receipts). Determining what is the "net income" to which the 9% tax rate is applied would leave plenty of work for the CPAs and attorneys.
I'm not so sure about that. Even the 999 plan calls for an "income" tax. At least in the case of businesses, this would likely be net income, not gross income (i.e. gross receipts). Determining what is the "net income" to which the 9% tax rate is applied would leave plenty of work for the CPAs and attorneys.
Not really. Consider under 999 most Americans will simply have wages and charitable contributions presumably people can subtract ONE number from ONE other number to come up with their taxable income. I say that with the full realization of some of the 'math skills' that have been exhibited in this very thread. But yes, businesses and the self employed will still need to compute taxable income but again, it will be incredibly LESS complicated due to far fewer deductions and only one rate.
Please know what follows is the excerpted 1st half of a "American Spectator" article I read this am. If anyone wishes for the rest (deals with subbing sales tax with a specific carbon tax),please let me know and I will comply: ++++++++++++++++
The Missing Piece of 9-9-9 By Green Lantern on 10.13.11 @ 6:08AM
Herman Cain's plan is all fine and good, but a national sales tax won't wash. So what will replace that component?
Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax reform is attracting enough attention to become the focus of this week's Presidential debate. As a plan for overhauling revenues and unleashing the private sector, it's a bold gambit that shows Cain is willing to take chances and shake up the Capital.
The 9 percent business tax is a stroke of genius. It would give us the lowest business rates in the world and would make us the "tax haven" for investment from everywhere. The stock market would barely be able to stay abreast. The 9 percent personal income rate would eliminate all the deductions and put everyone on a level playing field. Tax collection from "the rich" would skyrocket because no one would hide income anymore, but "the other 99%" would make out as well. Cain's plan would fold in the 15 percent payroll tax so the new 9 percent rate would be an improvement - but would end the immunity that the bottom half has from paying any taxes at all. Altogether a good show.
The stickler is that 9 percent national sales tax. That's where things start to fall apart. As other Republican candidates point out, a 9 percent sales tax is an ugly departure from the traditional pattern and raises all kinds of problems.
The sales tax has long been the preserve of the states and is now imposed in all but five of them (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon). The informal arrangement has been that the federal government gets income taxes, the states get the sales tax and local municipalities are granted the property tax. Often they poach. States and even cities have imposed income taxes and have also started trespassing on the property tax. But for the federal government to demand a 9 percent sales tax would be a whole new departure. Combined with state and city levies, it puts us near 20 percent, which is black market territory.
People are not going to pay a 20 percent sales tax on big-ticket items such as cars and appliances. In New York City there used to be a whole underground where stores would sell you a computer and then tell you to pick it up at a warehouse in New Jersey to avoid the city's 8.75 percent sales tax. (This was before New Jersey raised its own levy to 7 percent.) People will be setting up new car drop-offs in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid sales taxes and smuggling would be reborn.
There would also be all kinds of argument about how it would apply. Do you pay it on an $800,000 house? On a $200,000 college education? Many states are trying to impose the tax on services, which immediately gets a buzz from lawyers and other professionals. Cain tries to distinguish between "new" and "used" goods, but that would produce all kinds of gaming too. Plus the tax is highly regressive. Poor people would pay a tax on what they eat. Retired people with no income would be big losers. Plus the whole thing would be a nightmare to collect. The states employ hundreds of inspectors to audit the books of mom-and-pop grocery stores. Would an army of federal inspectors be necessary as well?...
These "Empowerment Zones" wreak of favoritism (for lack of a better word) BUT, he doesn't exactly spell out what they are and what makes them what they are.
Will he push through a BBA before or after he gives universal amnesty?
D'oh! Which candidate could you possibly be referring to?
It is not a single issue election for me. The invasion of illegals here continues to be a major problem and even though the man from Texas may be strong in the 2nd he seems to be carrying a white flag in the immigration issue. I would want a clear policy statement on immigration before I could stand in his corner. I see lots of posts about his being the strongest on the 2nd but it get real quiet when we discuss the invading horde.
A reasonable piece but I still say his pluses combined with his 'feared' minuses... weighed against the current reality of minuses... still gets a big plus vote for 9-9-9. However, I concur... if he'd rather drop that last 9 and make it 15-15 or some such I'm in! However, that last 9 lets you collect form illegals, and legal visitors, as well as income tax evaders, that currently pay nothing. I do think his 'black market' is a bit exagerrated. Tourist centers have some of the highest (and I mean REALLY high) 'tourist taxes' on hotels etc... of anywhere in the world. Know of any 'black market B&B's in Orlando?
These "Empowerment Zones" wreak of favoritism (for lack of a better word) BUT, he doesn't exactly spell out what they are and what makes them what they are.
Again I only heard him mention it once or twice but the premise is, for newly and drastically empoverished areas (like Detroit, not like Watts) that could use added incentive to encourage businesses to come back, a zone would be established with a temporary lower rate. Again, I think it's a well intentioned slippery slope. Not a deal breaker but he ought to just drop it all together. He's not getting Detroit's vote anyway.
Scott....do you truly believe the USofA has the resources,the manpower or even the desire after 20 plus years of talking about it(since Reagan,right?)to deport 22 million plus illegals,(with US citizen born children)back across the border?
I know the arguments and am trying to imagine the solution, using a open and unfettered by bias mind. Right now,I'm just curious, from both a practical and realistic approach standpoint,as to whether the folks who have thought this through,ad nauseum,can really see this monumental financial and logistical nightmare actually taking place.
It is not a single issue election for me. The invasion of illegals here continues to be a major problem and even though the man from Texas may be strong in the 2nd he seems to be carrying a white flag in the immigration issue. I would want a clear policy statement on immigration before I could stand in his corner. I see lots of posts about his being the strongest on the 2nd but it get real quiet when we discuss the invading horde.
But what do I know? I still like West.
I think if you'll look at those "lots of posts" you'll see, one fan owns 95%+ of them. But then again, maybe the rest of us just "don't have a heart."
Isaac, I have thought about it a lot and as far as I can see there is NO easy or good answer. It must include the securing of our border and that alone is a huge proposition. Then there needs to be a way to fairly get control of those who are here illegally. No one liked McCain's ideas but in reality it was a fair start.
I believe those who are caught in felonious acts and and here illegally should be deported and not allowed back.
Yet ordinary income is taxed at 9% and then again at 9%. So why should Warren Buffett and other wall street fat cats get a lower tax rate under Cain's plan than most other Americans?
. my answer, cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us. I disagree with the premise, you've made more you should pay a higher percentage.
you're already going to pay more than me cause you have a higher income that's taxed at the same percentage.
I know folks on the bottom end of the income scale (right where I started) that love the current system, any tax they pay in they get most of it back and they are all for this gov't program and that gov't program if it benefits them or their friends.
you'll never get them to vote for a fiscal conservative, they want gov't programs and they want anyone besides themselves to fund it.
I thought one of the things that was supposed to make our country great is that we are all equal under the eyes of the law. How does that work with a progressive tax structure?
get everyone with skin in the game, and then our problems are all the same, gov't needs to put down the checkbook.
until that happens, expect the class warfare to continue.
You must have missed the part where under Cain's plan there's no income tax on capital gains. That means fat cats like Warren Buffett pay at a lower rate than ordinarily workers. Thus your comment that "cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us" is incorrect, because under Cain's system they would be at a lower percentage rate.
nope didn't miss it at all, in fact I love it, talk about doing something for retired folks!
isn't the whole idea to SAVE and invest? eliminating capital gains tax would do "what" for the stock market and business? hmmm my guess is there would be an influx of capital to the stock market and thus business. $$$ for R&D, expansions, retooling etc.
I don't begrudge anyone that's saved and invested and has been successful in doing so.
tis what my Depression era grandparents taught me, work hard, live beneath (not within) your means, save money for a rainy day.
it was others that taught me to try and get that money to work for you. but bless my grandparents for teaching me the steps to get to have $$ to invest.
a dollar goes where it's treated best, in business, in investing etc. bout the only exception to that is when it goes to the gov't. but they force you to send it. if they're gonna force you to, they should force everyone to imo.
until we all have skin in the game, we have different problems as Americans.
the rich's problem is how to buy influence to get even better deals from Congress that they can exploit.
the middle class and yes Virginia 250K per annum is upper middle class, but it is STILL middle class in these days, have to worry how they can lead a decent life and have more money to invest instead of sending it to the gov't
and the lower middle class and poor have to worry about who they can elect to continue all the gov't programs in the hope they can benefit from them as long as they don't have to help pay for them.
treat us all equal and our problems become much more in common with one another, how to get the gov't to live within its means.
Why should cap gains be taxed? Capital investment is THE driver of our economy. And so what if the rich get richer....You ever thought about saving money and investing? Ever thought that you could take care of yourself? Ever thought that no cap gain tax could benefit you?
Scott....do you truly believe the USofA has the resources,the manpower or even the desire after 20 plus years of talking about it(since Reagan,right?)to deport 22 million plus illegals,(with US citizen born children)back across the border?
I know the arguments and am trying to imagine the solution, using a open and unfettered by bias mind. Right now,I'm just curious, from both a practical and realistic approach standpoint,as to whether the folks who have thought this through,ad nauseum,can really see this monumental financial and logistical nightmare actually taking place.
Damn.You must have just dedicated this whole day to forcing reality into the comfortable world of illusions enjoyed by some who know so damn much about so much.
Bachman just happened on the right #'s by trying to be clever. But 666 would be much closer to reasonable tax rates than 999. Cain's plan allows for continuing to spend at current levels (no income change). We just don't need such expensive government and cannot bear the burden of that level of overhead cost.
Scott....do you truly believe the USofA has the resources,the manpower or even the desire after 20 plus years of talking about it(since Reagan,right?)to deport 22 million plus illegals,(with US citizen born children)back across the border?
I know the arguments and am trying to imagine the solution, using a open and unfettered by bias mind. Right now,I'm just curious, from both a practical and realistic approach standpoint,as to whether the folks who have thought this through,ad nauseum,can really see this monumental financial and logistical nightmare actually taking place.
Damn.You must have just dedicated this whole day to forcing reality into the comfortable world of illusions enjoyed by some who know so damn much about so much.
"I believe those who are caught in felonious acts and and here illegally should be deported and not allowed back."
I want you and your smart-assed running mate to tell me how in hell our Texas prisons got filled up with illegals if Perry is so "soft" on them.
You can speculate that Cain would have needled the Mexican who brutally raped and murdered a young girl - even against Obama's plea to not kill him.But it is speculation,which is what LSU excels at.We KNOW what Perry did.
The enforcement of our borders is a FEDERAL issue.That's what Perry has said repeatedly.In case you haven't noticed , Obama has already declared amnesty.
What do the law enforcement officers in YOUR states do when they pick up an illegal that they can't charge with a state crime?
What do the law enforcement officers in YOUR states do when they pick up an illegal that they can't charge with a state crime?
Do you even know?
Yes I do. They don't do a damned thing. They give them all the free stuff they want including instate collage. But my state id so puking liberal it hurts.
What I want to know is what Perry will do if he is POTUS. Then it is a federal problem and he will be it head of the federal government!
It needs two more 9s 9% additional tax for union members and 9% on top of that for those who work for unions. Thus union members would pay 18% income tax and those that work for unions would pay 27% income tax.
If Obama can give special deals for his union buddies in ObamaCare we can give them speceal deals when we take power.
Thank you. I am NOT anti Perry but it is something I have not seen addressed.
With Cain there is some doubt on his 2nd amendment stance and with Perry there is the immigration question. I would like to see both issued fully addressed before I vote.
Perry's immigration stances draw fire, support By JOE HOLLEY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
On a Sunday in June 2001, the first-year governor of Texas signed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates instead of paying international fees. Supporters of the legislation called it the Texas Dream Act.
On a June morning 10 years later, that same governor convened a special session of the Texas Legislature and urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would outlaw so-called "sanctuary cities," places where police are not allowed to ask the immigration status of people they detain. Hispanic lawmakers, most of them Democrats, considered the bill a personal affront; they warned the governor that he risked a backlash among Hispanic voters. The sanctuary city measure, which already had failed during the regular session, failed again, due in larger measure to opposition from powerful Texas business interests.
Those two efforts - one supported by a fledgling governor, the other by a man on the verge of running for president - represent Gov. Rick Perry's shifting position on immigration issues during his 10-plus years in office.
Spurned border fence
Like his predecessor George W. Bush, Perry has built a reputation over the years for taking a relatively moderate approach to immigration issues. He appointed a Hispanic secretary of state and the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court. He called the idea of a border fence "nonsense" and resisted efforts to emulate Arizona's strict approach to illegal immigration. Those positions helped him attract 38 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2010.
More recently, though, he has moved steadily rightward. As he travels about the country courting GOP primary voters, including tea partyers, the question is whether he has moved far enough to satisfy their concerns.
Perry still supports the 2001 law he signed, but he opposes the federal Dream Act.
"The governor signed this legislation back in 2001, believing that, if a young individual who was brought here through no fault of his or her own is willing to rely on a good education instead of government services, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to pay for a good college education so they can contribute to society," spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said.
Perry the presidential campaigner usually does not mention the Texas law, although a New Hampshire newspaper reporter asked him about it last month.
"To punish these young Texans for their parents' actions is not what America has always been about," Perry said.
Signed Voter Id Act
He fields questions regularly about his general position on illegal immigration and invariably highlights his get-tough approach, maintaining that the federal government must secure a dangerously porous border before the talk turns to immigration reform. He has called for Predator drones to be deployed along the border for surveillance, and his political ads have featured him touring the border with a local sheriff and warning about drug smugglers and gang violence.
Perry also signed a Voter ID Act this year, despite opposition from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and other advocacy groups denouncing the law as an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters.
The federal Dream Act failed to win passage in December 2010. Although Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reintroduced the legislation in May, its chances have dimmed since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. The bill would give young, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years an opportunity for citizenship through college or military service.
"Regarding federal Dream Act legislation, it is irresponsible to be considering federal immigration reforms until the border is secure," Frazier said. "Without border security, any efforts to reform immigration will be useless and ineffective."
Perry also opposes the policy the White House announced last week that could lead to the suspension of deportation proceedings against tens of thousands of immigrants who have committed no crime other than violating immigration law.
"This administration continues to leave the door open for rampant illegal immigration by refusing to allocate the resources necessary to secure our borders and selectively enforcing our nation's immigration laws," Frazier said.
Some misgivings voiced
Although the Dream Act, federal or otherwise, is anathema for tea party voters, Perry's focus on border security seems to have tempered their concerns about his moderate past, despite misgivings expressed by some prominent tea party bloggers in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"There are mixed feelings about him in the tea party," said George Rodriguez, a retired government employee who serves as president of the San Antonio Tea Party. Rodriguez said that, personally, he considers Perry "a very, very good candidate," but that some of his tea party cohorts feel "he's dropped the ball on illegal immigration, particularly during the last legislative session."
Rodriguez, who worked for what was then the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he had seen "the evolution of illegal immigration." When Perry signed the Dream Act, he said, illegal immigration was not a crisis issue, but now "times are radically different."
Bill Moore, president of the Sugar Land Tea Party, also gave Perry a pass.
"That was a long time ago," he said, referring to the Texas law. "I haven't really heard people talk about it. We need to secure the border. That's the key thing for the safety of everybody, and the federal government really hasn't put up the resources to get it done."
Of course it is a reasonable question.You can listen to what he SAYS he would do , then measure it against what he HAS DONE as Governor of a border State.
He Says he will secure the border ,and KNOWS HOW.Like everyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence who actually spends time down there-like Pat Powell and a few others - he knows that popular,easy sounding solutions[does BUILD A DAMN FENCE ALL ALONG THE BORDER AND PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND sound familiar?] will not solve the problem."Comprehensive" has come to mean "amnesty" to the Beck and O'Reilly tools , but it actually does have a meaning apart from that.
He SAYS strategic fencing is one part of the solution.Federal troops to back up the BP in high traffic areas is another part.A guest worker program , where you know who they are and where they are is another.Employer sanctions is a problem for the Congress,apparently , because they have chosen to ignore it.
What he has done is simply everything he can do as governor to deal with the CRIMINALS coming across.Did either of you read the "General's Report " which Texas paid for?
It outlines how we have elite squads of DPS troopers and Texas Rangers-which are the only resources under the Governor's control- working with the BP,local LEO's,and the Mexican authorities to deal with the CRIME on our side of the border.
All you are interested in is the fact that Perry , with overwhelming support from the legislature,allow certain kids who are here thru no law-breaking on their part , who are pursuing citizenship in the state they live in , to be treated as citizens for purposes of IN STATE tuition.
Can you understand that some of us - most of us evidently - think that THAT is none of your damn business.
What he has done is simply everything he can do as governor to deal with the CRIMINALS coming across.Did either of you read the "General's Report " which Texas paid for?
Thank you Sir. This is what I have been looking for but have not seen posted. Do you have a link for the "General's Report". I have not heard of it and living in Washington State have no clue what it is or anything about it. But trust me, I am willing to read it.
You seem to think I am apposing you but that is not the case. I am just looking for answers. My mind is still open and my choice is not even running.
Amnesty, rewards for illegals to take advantage of our nation by getting "free" and "discounted" stuff while paying nothing for it, a fence with holes in it, and more taxes on business.
Great plan....not.
Piss on "Governor Good Hair".
Get a POTUS that's serious about protecting the border, and put Jan Brewer or Sheriff Babeu or "America's toughest Sheriff" has head of DHS.
It needs two more 9s 9% additional tax for union members and 9% on top of that for those who work for unions. Thus union members would pay 18% income tax and those that work for unions would pay 27% income tax.
If Obama can give special deals for his union buddies in ObamaCare we can give them speceal deals when we take power.
Only if Kalifornicators also pay an additional 18% for living amongst and allowing some of the dumbest bullchit ever witnessed. Afterall you folks don't stay put and wind up infecting the other states with your vile and disgusting ideas.
I like the idea that you give up the kids tax plan there are people I work with you get more than they pay and its because of the kids and I have raised mine. Remember this is simply the whole thing I actually like it. With the exception how long before WA wants to increase it.
Texas Border Security Council Report to Governor Rick Perry governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/border-security-report.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The 80th Texas State Legislature allocated $110 million for border security and created ... The Texas Border Security Strategy established by Governor Perry in ...
Google the Texas Border etc etc to read the full report.
Following is a "report on the report" by a reputable border scholar.I started a thread on this but -as usual- the idiot cop from Tn.stalked 'ops to it and it went to hell.I didn't try to keep it going.
#5661774 - 09/28/11 02:25 PM Further to 'Oop's Thread on Texas Border Security curdog4570 Online content Campfire Tracker
Registered: 02/18/01 Posts: 7476 Loc: North texas usa Pay attention to the ROE for Nat'l Guard troops :
Yesterday Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment BY Herschel Smith 14 hours, 15 minutes ago
Two very important individuals in the military (and now consulting) community, Barry McCaffrey and Robert Scales, have penned a much-anticipated study entitled Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment.
The state on the ground in the war with the Mexican cartels is remarkable. We�ve already discussed how the Mexican cartels have adopted military-style tactics, techniques and procedures.
Mexican drug cartels are using military weapons and tactics while also recruiting Texas teenagers to carry out their operations, which are evolving into full-blown criminal enterprises, experts said.
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven C. McCraw said last week in a report given to Congress that the cartels �incorporate reconnaissance networks, techniques and capabilities normally associated with military organizations, such as communications intercepts, interrogations, trend analysis, secure communications, coordinated military-style tactical operations, GPS, thermal imagery and military armaments, including fully automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenades.�
There is apparently massive corruption in the U.S. border patrol, and the Mexican cartels have law enforcement officials at the local, state and national levels on their payroll. In order to combat the smuggling operations across the Rio Grande, Texas is creating a marine division. The reach of the cartels goes into the High Schools in Texas where they are recruiting children for cartel work.
McCaffrey and Scales add to the bleak picture by showing how the cartel strategy has changed from control through locations South of the border to control via operations at least one county deep into Texas, and they discuss the increased criminalization and violence associated with the cartels. The bleak picture dovetails with an assessment by Robert Bunker at Small Wars Journal.
Ten years after the 9/11 attack by Al Qaeda, the United States has reached a pivotal strategic decision point in our national policies. Are we to continue with our national security policy of focusing on that terrorist entity (and its group of networks) as the dominant threat to the US and the homeland or will the Mexican cartels (and their supporting gang networks) now be recognized as replacing Al Qaeda as the number one threat to our government and safety of our citizens? While the violence potentials of Al Qaeda are universally recognized� we will never forget the thousands of our dead mourned after 9/11� the violence associated with the criminal insurgent potentials of the Mexican cartels and their ability to corrupt and undermine governments in the Western Hemisphere must now be considered far more threatening to our nation.
The cartels� influence expands to thousands of U.S. cities and communities, and there are on the order of 18,000 cartels members or associated workers in Texas alone. The ability to intimidate and corrupt is unmatched in U.S. history � there is no national analogue to which the U.S. can refer to combat this menace.
The task for McCaffrey and Scales is big, and the bar set high. As for their recommendations? They sweep across a range of options, coordinated relationships, and increased efficiency in law enforcement. Counterintelligence and sting operations are of course important, as is rapid response capabilities and increased manpower.
McCaffrey and Scales do recommend the involvement of state troops (i.e., National Guard), but all efforts in this program are seen as led by Texas Rangers. It is fundamentally a civilian-led operation. Perhaps this focus is in deference to the Posse Comitatus Act (Section 1385, Title 18 U.S.C.), but it isn�t at all clear that U.S. troops should be forbidden or even could be forbidden from participating in border security under this act.
Furthermore, McCaffrey and Scales have a problem with their recommendation to use National Guard under the current circumstances. Recall that in Arizona, a National Guard-manned post was attacked and overrun by cartel fighters. Immediately after this, the following assessment was proffered.
Unfortunately, I must report that �Armed does not always mean �armed� as most Americans would understand. There are various states of being �armed.� These are called �Arming Orders (AO)� which define where the weapon �is,� where the magazine �is,� where the bullets �are� and where the bayonet �is.� They start at Arming Order One which could best be described as a �show of force� or �window dressing� in the worse case.
After considerable searching, I was able to find a complete copy of the Memorundum of Understanding/Rules of Engagement pertaining to the National Guard Deployment (�Operation Jump Start�), which I could then review.
After reviewing the MOU/ROE, I contacted several senior �in the loop� National Guard Officers that I have previously served with, to determine how many soldiers would be �armed� and their Arming Order number. After confirming The El Paso Times article that �very few soldiers there would carry weapons,� I was advised that during the next 90 days, amongst the few soldiers that have weapons, no soldier will have an Arming Order greater than AO-1, which means that an M-16 will be on the shoulder, there will be no magazine in the weapon (thats where the bullets come from), and the magazines stored inside the �ammunition pouch� will in most cases have no ammunition, they will be empty.
It was also conveyed to myself that in the unlikely event that a soldier is ever harmed on the border, the Arming Order will not be raised. Every individual I spoke to envisions no circumstance where there will ever be soldiers at AO-3/4, where a magazine with ammunition would be immediately available. Instead the soldiers will simply be kept farther away from the border if needed. They will be deliberately kept out of harms way.
I know you are thinking (maybe screaming), �but Why?� The easy public relations answer is that a soldier could kill someone. The National Guard is going to ensure that there is not a repeat of the incident in which Esequiel Hern�ndez was killed by a US Marine along the Border.
There are also numerous regulations pertaining to weapons. There is a requirement that a soldier must qualify with his weapon on an annual basis. Reasonably, you must be �qualified� with your weapon before you may carry a weapon. However, ranges for weapons qualification are extremely limited. National Guard soldiers normally perform their once a year required qualification when they go to Annual Training at Ft. Stewart, Ft. McCoy�� This year they are going to �the border� and unless there is a �regulation M-16 qualification range� down the road, they will not be able to get qualified. There is also the question of weapon storage and how do you prevent theft.
Even disregarding all of this, the rules for the use of force will prevent the effective use of the National Guard to accomplish border security. That is, unless something drastically changes.
I have recommended that we view what is going on as a war against warlords and insurgents who will destabilize the state both South and even North of the border. I have further recommended that the RUF be amended and the U.S. Marines be used to set up outposts and observation posts along the border in distributed operations, even making incursions into Mexican territory if necessary while chasing insurgents (Mexican police have used U.S. soil in pursuit of the insurgents).
While militarization of border security may be an unpalatable option for America, it is the only option that will work. All other choices make the situation worse because it is allowed to expand and grow. Every other option is mere window dressing.
While McCaffrey and Scales have done a service in their outline of the scope and magnitude of the problem, their recommendations are, needless to say, underwhelming. They kick the can down the road, and the road only becomes more dangerous with time and distance. Above it was said that there is no national analogue to the menace at the border. The only analogue to this problem is the most recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem has exceeded the ability of law enforcement to cope. Featured,Mexican Cartels,Mexico,Texas Border Security _________________________
"WAR Has Come To Texas" , or something similar is what the two General Officers conclude , as you will see if you read the report.
In light of what's going on in our S Texas counties , perhaps I can be forgiven for my reaction to out of state people bitchin' about tuition.
"I believe those who are caught in felonious acts and and here illegally should be deported and not allowed back."
I want you and your smart-assed running mate to tell me how in hell our Texas prisons got filled up with illegals if Perry is so "soft" on them.
You can speculate that Cain would have needled the Mexican who brutally raped and murdered a young girl - even against Obama's plea to not kill him.But it is speculation,which is what LSU excels at.We KNOW what Perry did.
The enforcement of our borders is a FEDERAL issue.That's what Perry has said repeatedly.In case you haven't noticed , Obama has already declared amnesty.
What do the law enforcement officers in YOUR states do when they pick up an illegal that they can't charge with a state crime?
Do you even know?
This is really emotional for you isn't it? What do my LEO's do? "Hold for immigration". Prior to that, they don't get subsidized tuition that we don't give LEGAL citizens/residents of other U.S. states.
Thanks Isacac,that clears it up about as much as we have a clear statement from Cain in his 2nd stance.
I would still like clear and precise statements from both.
Cain has "six guns and it's not enough". Perry has tens of thousands of illegal aliens he's willing to give subsidies to and a fence is nonsense. Clear enough?
This thread has been a great read. I like Maclorry's posting style - mostly unemotional and just focusing on his information.
I'm afraid Cain has enjoyed his 15 minutes as front runner and the next debate, whenever that is - should he still be touting the 9-9-9 plan by then unscathed will show us Perry and Romney shredding it, scaring Seniors and lower middle class and have Cain biting his bottom lip trying to salvage his message.
Now there is you,LSU, and Gus,all of the same mindset.You ignore ANY explanations,even after you demand them.You don't know much about Texas Government -except Gus,and he ignores it when it doesn't suit whatever point he is trying to make- and you sure as hell know nothing about the Texas/Mexico border,or you wouldn't keep repeating your silly "build a fence" mantra,and it's for DAMN sure that gun rights are unimportant to you.Isaac posted this a few posts back:
"On a Sunday in June 2001, the first-year governor of Texas signed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates instead of paying international fees. Supporters of the legislation called it the Texas Dream Act."
Do you REALLY think that Perry is a good enough politician to ram this piece of legislation thru BOTH houses of the Texas Congress in less than six months? The FACT is that the bill had passed with over 95% support in the legislature.
Even if he had been against it,a veto would have been over-ridden the next day.
This info was there for the reading before any of you three posted your latest "immigration" B.S.
"This is really emotional for you isn't it? What do my LEO's do? "Hold for immigration". Prior to that, they don't get subsidized tuition that we don't give LEGAL citizens/residents of other U.S. states."
Nope.You can just say that I don't suffer fools gladly.
They are gonna be holding them a long time since ICE quit deporting them some time back.If they haven't committed a state crime , what's the charge against them?
Have y'all figured out something that us folks in the border states don't know?
Well,you are right about you not mentioning the fence.I was wrong to direct that comment at you.Actually,I had VAnimrod in mind ,but that's no excuse.
I ain't campaigning for Perry.I started out saying this:
He is the most pro 2A candidate we have EVER had.
He has never lost an election.
Everything else I have posted about him is disputing unfair criticism and outright lies lifted from left wing websites in some instances.
I still think that disregarding a candidate's pro-gun stance because you [editorial you] disagree with what is undoubtedly a State's Rights issue or what someone painted on a rock, would mark a person as one who has 2A rights waaay down on their priority list.
I know Romney's a snake as far as guns.If all Cain has to offer is "I've got six guns and wish I had more", it tells me he doesn't consider 2A rights very important.All we have to go on is what he tells us , since unlike Romney and Perry , he has no record to examine.And he hasn't told us much.
Your opinion of me is not so important that I'd lift a finger to change it.I'm sure you feel the same about my opinion of you.
But,as I said, I put you in a company you don't deserve to be in ,and I apologize for that.
"Like "good fences make good neighbors", and fencing problems out actually works?"
Unless you figure out a way to build hundreds of miles of fence DOWN THE MIDDLE OF A RIVER , you would have to take land from hundreds of citizens of Texas,build your fence on their land , and give Mexico the land on the other side and ALL the Rio Grande.
curdog, thank you, I'm stuck with I judged you too fast.
you're impassioned about your governor and candidate, I should get that, I had a belly full of the Palin slammers in the last election, so I should have a better understanding of where you're coming from in your defense of Perry.
this next election is very important to every red blooded American.
I want to like Cain, because he's not a politician and frankly I've had it up to here with pro politicians, hell they're the ones that got us in this mess. I know I didn't vote to spend more money than we take in every year and I doubt you did either
mighty decent of you to correct your mistake, hope you'll allow me the same and say my mind ain't made up on a couple of Texans I've become somewhat familiar with of late.
best to ya, and for god's sake the best to our country, those politicians have put us in damned tight spot.
anyone that thinks it's gonna be easy to fix this mess is delusional.
I'm surprised they can find anyone to run for the job!
oh and can't say I'm for a fence, I trust you local boys to have a better handle on that, but I am for saying the Rio Grande is the border, we can share the water, but you know what, we're overrun with your poor, your tired and your criminals, we know it's harsh, but you step over that border and it's open season.
harsh I know, but we've reached a point we can't take care of our own, thanks to gov't overspending, we surely can't afford to take care of another country's problems.
Gov. Good-Hair has never lost an election. Yippee... And, he's solid on the 2A (now, not so much when he was hyping Al Gore; political wind shifted, obviously). Cool.
He essentially sucks on every other issue; trade, taxes, economy, immigration, foreign policy....
But, he traded in that (D) for an (R), and he kilt a coyote while joggin'.... And, the Mexicans love him... And, of course, he's from Texass....
Yep, that looks like plenty to support right there. Who needs all those other facts, anyway?
Like any of us matter...really. It's funny that we think that we (you, me, us) actualy matter in this. We don't.
The GOP establishment and the MSM have Romney annointed, and that's who we'll get. It's easy to see; he's coddled, he's obviously coached, and he's been "chosen" for us this time.
We might not like it, but we don't matter.
So, I can like Cain over Perry, and either considerably over Romney. And, you might reverse the first two, and still take either over Romney...but it just don't matter, because we don't.
Even as the OP I haven�t read all the posts on this topic, but I get it that many conservatives really-really-really like Cain�s 9-9-9 plan.
Some dispute just what 9-9-9 means to various income groups, but there�s little doubt that it shifts the tax burden down the income scale. While many conservatives like the simpleness and fairness of a one-size-fits-all tax plan, the problem is that in a Cain vs Obama contest, the number of people that get a tax increase is far greater than the number of people that get a tax decrease. Even right of center voters who would like to see Obama replaced are not going to vote for a tax increase on themselves to satisfy the far right�s sense of fairness.
You may not agree that Cain�s plan shifts the tax burden down the income scale, but that�s what the MSM is telling the public. Here�s just a sample.
Herman Cain�s 999 plan: a misleading pitch This article has lots of links to substantiating information and more details such as the one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.
In a Cain vs Obama election the MSM would hammer the negative messages about Cain�s 9-9-9 plan home incessantly. Come election day I fear Obama would easily win his second term. You may not like Romney, but he�s the one Republican in the race who would trounce Obama. That means the end of Obamacare, the end of the regulation war on business, the opening of domestic drilling, and going after the cheating countries who have stolen millions of American jobs. I can live with that, can you live with another 4 years of Obama? If the answer is no then quite pissing on Romney.
Even if he had been against it,a veto would have been over-ridden the next day.
This info was there for the reading before any of you three posted your latest "immigration" B.S.
You,Gus,and LSU.Quite the brain trust.
Let me get this straight, so because a veto would have over ridden it, the proper thing to do was bow down to the legislative branch? Ok.... THAT is DEFINITELY the kind of thing we need in a president! And your last little comment, is assuredly the best way to sway other to your POV. Don't let anyone tell you differently. If I didn't know better, I'd think the reports out yesterday of Cain topping most every poll now (including head to head with Romney) and Perry falling faster than any other candidate so far that he's now below Newt, just has you mad. Don't blame Cain supporters, blame YOUR candidates undesirables.
Like any of us matter...really. It's funny that we think that we (you, me, us) actualy matter in this. We don't.
The GOP establishment and the MSM have Romney annointed, and that's who we'll get. It's easy to see; he's coddled, he's obviously coached, and he's been "chosen" for us this time.
We might not like it, but we don't matter.
So, I can like Cain over Perry, and either considerably over Romney. And, you might reverse the first two, and still take either over Romney...but it just don't matter, because we don't.
We'll get, who they've chosen. Simple as that.
Please delete your post. This is primary (aka dillusion) time! You'd probably pop a kid's baloon in the park wouldn't you?
Even as the OP I haven�t read all the posts on this topic, but I get it that many conservatives really-really-really like Cain�s 9-9-9 plan.
Some dispute just what 9-9-9 means to various income groups, but there�s little doubt that it shifts the tax burden down the income scale. While many conservatives like the simpleness and fairness of a one-size-fits-all tax plan, the problem is that in a Cain vs Obama contest, the number of people that get a tax increase is far greater than the number of people that get a tax decrease. Even right of center voters who would like to see Obama replaced are not going to vote for a tax increase on themselves to satisfy the far right�s sense of fairness.
You may not agree that Cain�s plan shifts the tax burden down the income scale, but that�s what the MSM is telling the public. Here�s just a sample.
Herman Cain�s 999 plan: a misleading pitch This article has lots of links to substantiating information and more details such as the one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.
In a Cain vs Obama election the MSM would hammer the negative messages about Cain�s 9-9-9 plan home incessantly. Come election day I fear Obama would easily win his second term. You may not like Romney, but he�s the one Republican in the race who would trounce Obama. That means the end of Obamacare, the end of the regulation war on business, the opening of domestic drilling, and going after the cheating countries who have stolen millions of American jobs. I can live with that, can you live with another 4 years of Obama? If the answer is no then quite pissing on Romney.
You know it's funny that the left keeps complaining the 'rich' REALLY don't pay high taxes because of all the 'looopholes' they get. I mean that's what all the screaming is about getting them to pay even MORE right? Yet somehow a NO LOOPHOLE plan is a tax break for the rich? You gotta' love the left, they can play both sides of the coin with a straight face and never stutter. The last bolded part of your statement .... replace "Romney" with "McCain". I believe enough people fell for that nonsense last go around. Didn't work so great did it? Romney's only value is he is 'anybody but Obama'. Big whoop, so am I. He is absolutely a kick of the can 10 feet down the road (at best). The can has had enough and is beyond recognition. Sooner or later we've got to pick it up. This is our chance. If Cain wins the primary and America is foolish enough to pick Obama... AGAIN... well honestly... too bad for us. That will absolutely insure the day of reckoning will almost immediately befall us.
Even as the OP I haven�t read all the posts on this topic, but I get it that many conservatives really-really-really like Cain�s 9-9-9 plan.
Some dispute just what 9-9-9 means to various income groups, but there�s little doubt that it shifts the tax burden down the income scale. While many conservatives like the simpleness and fairness of a one-size-fits-all tax plan, the problem is that in a Cain vs Obama contest, the number of people that get a tax increase is far greater than the number of people that get a tax decrease. Even right of center voters who would like to see Obama replaced are not going to vote for a tax increase on themselves to satisfy the far right�s sense of fairness.
You may not agree that Cain�s plan shifts the tax burden down the income scale, but that�s what the MSM is telling the public. Here�s just a sample.
Herman Cain�s 999 plan: a misleading pitch This article has lots of links to substantiating information and more details such as the one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.
In a Cain vs Obama election the MSM would hammer the negative messages about Cain�s 9-9-9 plan home incessantly. Come election day I fear Obama would easily win his second term. You may not like Romney, but he�s the one Republican in the race who would trounce Obama. That means the end of Obamacare, the end of the regulation war on business, the opening of domestic drilling, and going after the cheating countries who have stolen millions of American jobs. I can live with that, can you live with another 4 years of Obama? If the answer is no then quite pissing on Romney.
You know it's funny that the left keeps complaining the 'rich' REALLY don't pay high taxes because of all the 'looopholes' they get. I mean that's what all the screaming is about getting them to pay even MORE right? Yet somehow a NO LOOPHOLE plan is a tax break for the rich? You gotta' love the left, they can play both sides of the coin with a straight face and never stutter. The last bolded part of your statement .... replace "Romney" with "McCain". I believe enough people fell for that nonsense last go around. Didn't work so great did it? Romney's only value is he is 'anybody but Obama'. Big whoop, so am I. He is absolutely a kick of the can 10 feet down the road (at best). The can has had enough and is beyond recognition. Sooner or later we've got to pick it up. This is our chance. If Cain wins the primary and America is foolish enough to pick Obama... AGAIN... well honestly... too bad for us. That will absolutely insure the day of reckoning will almost immediately befall us.
Sorry you feel that way. I�m sure all the liberals are hoping there are lots more like you out there.
Even if he had been against it,a veto would have been over-ridden the next day.
This info was there for the reading before any of you three posted your latest "immigration" B.S.
You,Gus,and LSU.Quite the brain trust.
Let me get this straight, so because a veto would have over ridden it, the proper thing to do was bow down to the legislative branch? Ok.... THAT is DEFINITELY the kind of thing we need in a president! And your last little comment, is assuredly the best way to sway other to your POV. Don't let anyone tell you differently. If I didn't know better, I'd think the reports out yesterday of Cain topping most every poll now (including head to head with Romney) and Perry falling faster than any other candidate so far that he's now below Newt, just has you mad. Don't blame Cain supporters, blame YOUR candidates undesirables.
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.
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.
Cur, Now see you went and did it. Please point me to 'lies' I have posted so I can immediately retract them. Yep... I don't own any guns. And I promise you I don't own a lot more than you. The ONE thing you seem to hold onto is that the Gore supporter is pro-gun. I agree, that's a (the) positive about him. But again, how does that make another candidates ANTI gun? Heaven forbid we go with the best overall package. Perry is NOT it and the polls thankfully reflect that (of course many suggst the idiot Romney is, so I will grant you there is that.... )
Even as the OP I haven�t read all the posts on this topic, but I get it that many conservatives really-really-really like Cain�s 9-9-9 plan.
Some dispute just what 9-9-9 means to various income groups, but there�s little doubt that it shifts the tax burden down the income scale. While many conservatives like the simpleness and fairness of a one-size-fits-all tax plan, the problem is that in a Cain vs Obama contest, the number of people that get a tax increase is far greater than the number of people that get a tax decrease. Even right of center voters who would like to see Obama replaced are not going to vote for a tax increase on themselves to satisfy the far right�s sense of fairness.
You may not agree that Cain�s plan shifts the tax burden down the income scale, but that�s what the MSM is telling the public. Here�s just a sample.
Herman Cain�s 999 plan: a misleading pitch This article has lots of links to substantiating information and more details such as the one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.
In a Cain vs Obama election the MSM would hammer the negative messages about Cain�s 9-9-9 plan home incessantly. Come election day I fear Obama would easily win his second term. You may not like Romney, but he�s the one Republican in the race who would trounce Obama. That means the end of Obamacare, the end of the regulation war on business, the opening of domestic drilling, and going after the cheating countries who have stolen millions of American jobs. I can live with that, can you live with another 4 years of Obama? If the answer is no then quite pissing on Romney.
You know it's funny that the left keeps complaining the 'rich' REALLY don't pay high taxes because of all the 'looopholes' they get. I mean that's what all the screaming is about getting them to pay even MORE right? Yet somehow a NO LOOPHOLE plan is a tax break for the rich? You gotta' love the left, they can play both sides of the coin with a straight face and never stutter. The last bolded part of your statement .... replace "Romney" with "McCain". I believe enough people fell for that nonsense last go around. Didn't work so great did it? Romney's only value is he is 'anybody but Obama'. Big whoop, so am I. He is absolutely a kick of the can 10 feet down the road (at best). The can has had enough and is beyond recognition. Sooner or later we've got to pick it up. This is our chance. If Cain wins the primary and America is foolish enough to pick Obama... AGAIN... well honestly... too bad for us. That will absolutely insure the day of reckoning will almost immediately befall us.
Sorry you feel that way. I�m sure all the liberals are hoping there are lots more like you out there.
"One of two camps" leaves the choice to you,where it should be.
Hint: Repeating the "Gore supporter" crap gives you the credibility of Cindy Shehan."Bush lied,people died" doesn't REALLY explain the Iraq war but the two contentions expressed in the slogan cannot be dis proven independent of the other.
I have not read one post by ANYONE claiming Cain is anti gun.
It would be nice if he took the issue seriously enough to address it with more than a "I got six guns" comment.which is all I've seen offered so far.
I am constantly amazed at the argumentative nature of people supposedly supporting the same ideals. I certainly haven't decided yet who I'm supporting, but I am disappointed that people actually think that being the most vendictive or jumping up and down and screaming about one issue vehemently enough will particularly change opinions. I would hope that most here are actually smart enough to look for the candidate that represents the overall conservative ideals most closely as a whole rather than allowing one issue to decide their vote. There are some fairly educated people involved in this thread who seem to have cast all else aside strictly to support their point.
I will only say this about Cain's 999 plan. I am strongly opposed to an additional federal sales tax and I think the focus should be on reducing the size of government and lowering spending back to reasonable levels rather than finding a way to cover the current spending. I am not opposed to a fair/flat tax, but adding a federal sales tax is NOT the answer. Let's get back to talking about smaller government and lower spending.
"One of two camps" leaves the choice to you,where it should be.
Hint: Repeating the "Gore supporter" crap gives you the credibility of Cindy Shehan."Bush lied,people died" doesn't REALLY explain the Iraq war but the two contentions expressed in the slogan cannot be dis proven independent of the other.
I have not read one post by ANYONE claiming Cain is anti gun.
It would be nice if he took the issue seriously enough to address it with more than a "I got six guns" comment.which is all I've seen offered so far.
Do YOU have more?
Did Perry work for and support Gore or not? Sorry if that fact offends you. To be honest, it offends me to but I guess there are worse things in life. That is NOT all you've seen about Cain's support for the 2a it's just all you choose to remember (but at least you do acknowledge that). Countless other things including his speech in front of the NRA have been posted... but despite all that the man still has not shot a coyote. I know... it's a fatal flaw.
A reasonable post, refreshing. Mtnman, I agree, but one point of clarification, Mr. Cain's plan is to completely eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a federal sales tax. As I've stated endless times, I'd prefer a flat tax with no deductions but since nobody is championing that, 999 and the eventual move to a national sales tax completely has most of the pluses of that and almost none of the negatives of the current disaster. Agreed that spending should be priority one but that is the professed 'given' of all the "R" candidates. Unfortunately we all know in that regard, talk is cheap. Actually... it's proven to be real expensive!
It's too much to expect you to absorb information that has been directed at you from other posters as well as from Perry's supporters.There was no Republican Party in Texas in 1988 for all practical purposes.Perry switched parties earlier in his career than did Reagan.
You are the only one sticking to your "Gore"comments and your "killing a coyote while jogging"didn't marginalize Perry's pro 2A record the first time you used it and it has become tiresome to me.
I haven't read the entire thread, and so I apologize if this has alreday been pointed out. I'm sure ABC didn't choose the "family of four with a $50,000 income" by chance. They likely chose it because it makes the 999 plan look bad.
Actually Cain picked the $50,000 income as it's the average according to his research.
Originally Posted by CoalCracker
Any meaningful tax reform plan that would put this country on a sound financial footing is going to require more than a 1.4% tax rate (or less) from the vast middle class. I'd be willing to pay more if it meant that my kids would not inherit a bankrupt, third-world country.
The U.S. has had the current income tax system for nearly 100 years and you only need to go back to the late 90s to see that we can have both a balance federal budget and a booming economy with the current tax system. The real problem in the U.S. is the millions of good jobs that have been shipped overseas in the last 25 years. The job loss has finally reached a critical mass and no stuck on stupid 999 tax plan is going to magically fix that problem. As the OP said, Cain is a one trick pony and even if elected, Congress will never pass 999 and we'll be stuck with another unprepared president.
And so for the grand sum of $706 per year, this hypothetical family of four should expect to receive the world's best national defense, free health care for their kids (i.e. S-CHIP), good roads and bridges, free health care for millions of the poor (i.e. Medicaid), a War on Drugs, farm subsidies, subsidized higher education (PELL grants and more tax credits), loan guarantees to Solyndra, and on and on.
Seems like this "stuff" would quickly add up to more than $706 per year. But, not to worry. We'll just put it on the national credit card and let our kids pick up the tab, plus interest - paid to China!
Like any of us matter...really. It's funny that we think that we (you, me, us) actualy matter in this. We don't. We'll get, who they've chosen. Simple as that.
Like any of us matter...really. It's funny that we think that we (you, me, us) actualy matter in this. We don't. We'll get, who they've chosen. Simple as that.
It's too much to expect you to absorb information that has been directed at you from other posters as well as from Perry's supporters.There was no Republican Party in Texas in 1988 for all practical purposes.Perry switched parties earlier in his career than did Reagan.
You are the only one sticking to your "Gore"comments and your "killing a coyote while jogging"didn't marginalize Perry's pro 2A record the first time you used it and it has become tiresome to me.
Goodbye.
I guess this means I'll never get to retract my 'lies'.
Paying an equal percentage is one thing, but having to pay a new tax on money the income tax has already been paid on is just wrong.
You mean like the capital gains tax or the completely immoral death tax we currently have that goes AWAY under 999?
Cain's plan treats capital gains as ordinary income, so you pay 9% income tax and then 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 18%. That's a 3% tax increase over the current capital gains tax rate of 15%. Didn't you know that?
The 9% sale tax only applies to items which you buy. People with higher incomes spend a smaller percentage of their income (which would be subject to the 9% sales tax) than lower income people. They tend to save more (as a percentage of income) than those with lower incomes. My wife and I save over $80,000 a year, a luxury that a family of 4 (mom, dad, 2 kids) making $50,000 a year (60% of the US population - 2010 census) cannot do.
Under a 9-9-9 plan lower income people would pay more than they do now.
Not all income disbursments will be subject to the sales tax, and the income tax as we have it now will be gone. You aren't talking about a huge out of pocket increase. You make it sound like people will be out double what they spend now, and that just isn't true.
"One of two camps" leaves the choice to you,where it should be."
You put yourself in the "liar's" camp.You had a choice-only you knew your motivations for continually posting discredited B.S.
I have never conjured up a mental image of dis-embodied personalities from the internet.But,each time I start reading one of your posts , an unbidden image of Alan Colmes creeps in.
THAT'S an unpleasant experience I don't have to subject myself to.
yep djs, people with high incomes do indeed spend a smaller amount of their gross income on necessities and frivolities.
but spend they do, tax us all at the same rate and for certain if you earn and spend more, you pay more to the gov't as well.
I kinda like that idea
and if lower income families end up paying a bit more than they have the past few years, I see nada wrong with that.
I want them encouraged to move up in income, not pander to the gov't to make things unfair. They'll join the chorus of those that do pay taxes in telling the Feds, "put down the checkbook"
the fact that criminal non payers, are gonna pay something is just icing on the cake.
...People with higher incomes spend a smaller percentage of their income (which would be subject to the 9% sales tax) than lower income people. They tend to save more (as a percentage of income) than those with lower incomes... Under a 9-9-9 plan lower income people would pay more than they do now.
You got it. The poor are disadvantaged.
1st, there needs to be an income threshold below which poor families are exempt from paying any income tax. And really, to be fair, there should be some simple way to provide a progressive sliding scale to offset disparity between the lowest and highest incomes. Or it might be possible to level the playing field by simply exempting staple items from the federal sales tax.
Is the 9% sales tax going to apply to a business as well? If they are tax exempt what's to keep me from buying a new boat in the name of the company or a house etc....
If they aren't exempt isn't it just a VAT instead of a sales tax then?
"One of two camps" leaves the choice to you,where it should be."
You put yourself in the "liar's" camp.You had a choice-only you knew your motivations for continually posting discredited B.S.
I have never conjured up a mental image of dis-embodied personalities from the internet.But,each time I start reading one of your posts , an unbidden image of Alan Colmes creeps in.
THAT'S an unpleasant experience I don't have to subject myself to.
So you are going to still call me a liar and yet refuse to point out where huh? You know, around some parts that wouldn't wear well on a man. The internet is awesome.... Sorry I've conjured such unpleasant images for you. But I suspect Alan Colmes whole heartedly agrees with Perry regarding instate tuition. Perry's epic fall from favor has truly not sat well with you. Fear not. The man has money. He could rebound and you may yet still get to prove you "have a heart" and vote for the man for POTUS. If he's the last man standing, I will to. In the meantime, I'll continue to try and supporter the better of the lot.
I don't trust the MSM, so I figured the difference myself and it's even worse for Cain than ABC reported if you include retired folks in the middle class.
Being they are retired they pay no payroll tax, so there's no offset to buffer the 9% flat income tax with no deductions.
Unless Cain has more details some place that I haven't found, then money from a Roth IRA, which is tax free now, gets taxed at 9%. Money from Social Security, which is tax free now unless you have too much other income, is taxed at 9%. Then all that money is taxed at 9% again by the new federal sales tax. That adds up to an 18% tax increase on retirement income and a 9% tax increase on savings.
A couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see a $9,000 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
Cain's plan is simple and it simply shifts the tax burden from the highest income people to lower income people. Like Santorum said in the debate, Congress will never pass the 999 plan. Cain's a one trick pony and when retired folks learn about the massive tax increase they would get under 999, Cain will be heading for the exit.
...People with higher incomes spend a smaller percentage of their income (which would be subject to the 9% sales tax) than lower income people. They tend to save more (as a percentage of income) than those with lower incomes... Under a 9-9-9 plan lower income people would pay more than they do now.
You got it. The poor are disadvantaged.
1st, there needs to be an income threshold below which poor families are exempt from paying any income tax. And really, to be fair, there should be some simple way to provide a progressive sliding scale to offset disparity between the lowest and highest incomes. Or it might be possible to level the playing field by simply exempting staple items from the federal sales tax.
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?
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
People with high income may spend a smaller amount of their gross, but they still spend more and pay more sales tax than poor folks.
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...
People with high income may spend a smaller amount of their gross, but they still spend more and pay more sales tax than poor folks.
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.
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.....)
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.
I don't trust the MSM, so I figured the difference myself and it's even worse for Cain than ABC reported if you include retired folks in the middle class......(edit)
Your post is 100% bullshyt.
You say that like it's a detriment to the validity of a position around here or something?
I don't trust the MSM, so I figured the difference myself and it's even worse for Cain than ABC reported if you include retired folks in the middle class.
Being they are retired they pay no payroll tax, so there's no offset to buffer the 9% flat income tax with no deductions.
Unless Cain has more details some place that I haven't found, then money from a Roth IRA, which is tax free now, gets taxed at 9%. Money from Social Security, which is tax free now unless you have too much other income, is taxed at 9%. Then all that money is taxed at 9% again by the new federal sales tax. That adds up to an 18% tax increase on retirement income and a 9% tax increase on savings.
A couple with 50,000 in social security and Roth IRA income would see a $9,000 increase in their federal taxes under Cain's plan.
Cain's plan is simple and it simply shifts the tax burden from the highest income people to lower income people. Like Santorum said in the debate, Congress will never pass the 999 plan. Cain's a one trick pony and when retired folks learn about the massive tax increase they would get under 999, Cain will be heading for the exit.
Your post is 100% bullshyt.
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.
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.
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.
In order for 999 to pass, problems like tax free savings, Roth IRA, would be addressed. ===============
As would a repeal of the 16th.
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.
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?
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.
People with high income may spend a smaller amount of their gross, but they still spend more and pay more sales tax than poor folks.
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.
Why should one man pay one red cent more (percentage wise) than another man?
The view is that nobody generates wealth in isolation from the system in which they do business. For example...Wall Street tycoons who make many tens of millions of dollars per year have benefitted from a system that lots of poor kids have given their lives defending, and that lots of other hardworking, less fortunate folks helped to build. The view is that the progressive income tax is a means where those who have benefitted the most from the system...a system they didn't create on their own, that others also worked hard to build, and in many instances even gave their lives to defend...pay more percentage wise to support that system.
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.
That is absolutely the plus and should not be dismissed. But then the "poor" will begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth. The biggest reason 999 gets blasted by the media, despite their wailing about "the poor" is absolutely they know it neuters their voting block of political clout. They will not sit idly by. The heat on Mr. Cain hasn't even begun. Given the polls over the last 2 days, he's about to find out though....
The view is that nobody generates wealth in isolation from the system in which they do business. For example...Wall Street tycoons who make many tens of millions of dollars per year having benefitted from the system that lots of poor kids have given their lives defending, and that lot of other hardworking, less fortunate folks helped to build. The view is that the progressive income tax is a means where those who have benefitted the most from the system...a system they didn't create on their own, that others also worked hard to build, and in many instances even gave their lives to defend...pay more percentage wise to support that system.
And that view assumes one man has more 'access' to the system than another man and therefore should pay for that 'extra access'. Preposterous. Let's take an extreme example. Let's say a black man... who is born into poverty.... to uneducated parents... heck let's make the dad a janitor and the mother... I don't know... heck let's make her a maid. Yeah, that should do. That poor kid definitely doesn't have 'access' to the same 'system' you or I have (assuming you don't meet the just mentioned criteria). How in the world is that poor sap ever going to get ahead? Oh.... wait a minute...... http://www.hermancain.com/about
His poor parents have to pay more to feed their son,however. Maybe this is where that cloudy "Empowerment Zone" comes in. There still has to be entitlements and bennies,of course.
The view is that nobody generates wealth in isolation from the system in which they do business. For example...Wall Street tycoons who make many tens of millions of dollars per year having benefitted from the system that lots of poor kids have given their lives defending, and that lot of other hardworking, less fortunate folks helped to build. The view is that the progressive income tax is a means where those who have benefitted the most from the system...a system they didn't create on their own, that others also worked hard to build, and in many instances even gave their lives to defend...pay more percentage wise to support that system.
And that view assumes one man has more 'access' to the system than another man and therefore should pay for that 'extra access'. Preposterous. Let's take an extreme example. Let's say a black man... who is born into poverty.... to uneducated parents... heck let's make the dad a janitor and the mother... I don't know... heck let's make her a maid. Yeah, that should do. That poor kid definitely doesn't have 'access' to the same 'system' you or I have (assuming you don't meet the just mentioned criteria). How in the world is that poor sap ever going to get ahead? Oh.... wait a minute...... http://www.hermancain.com/about
You're right in that it's an "extreme" example. Certainly the exception rather than the rule. Millions of Americans will never, never be able to accomplish what your "extreme" example has...or even what many of us have...through no fault of their own. They work at Wal-Mart, Mazzio's, McDonald's, Best Buy, and other similar jobs because that's their station in life. They don't have the cognition, means (financial or otherwise), or ability (for many reasons that aren't their fault), or just plain good fortune to be upwardly moble to the degree that they can accomplish what your "extreme example" did...or even what many of us have. But they work hard at the jobs that they do have nonetheless. They're dedicated, work 40 hours a week (often more), and do the best they can...like all the rest of us do. I'm not talking about welfare leeches who choose not to work...I'm talking about millions of hard working people in this country who simply don't, and won't, accomplish what Herman Cain, or many of us, have. Some who have accomplished more than these unfortunate folks mentioned above, view themselves as being superior...when in fact, even though it required hard work and dedication (and the folks I've mentioned above also work hard and are dedicated), they should view themselves as being blessed.
They seem to equate a barrel of oil to 42 gallons of gasoline for taxing purposes.
"Given the differences I took a look at what the average barrel of oil produces. American Petroleum Institute reports that 1 barrel of oil produced 19.4 gallons of gasoline per barrel based on average yields for U.S. refineries in 2000."
The increase in gasoline price would be double what they project.
You're right in that it's an "extreme" example. Certainly the exception rather than the rule. Millions of Americans will never, never be able to accomplish what your "extreme" example has...or even what many of us have...through no fault of their own. They work at Wal-Mart, Mazzio's, McDonald's, Best Buy, and other similar jobs because that's their station in life. They don't have the cognition, means (financial or otherwise), or ability (for many reasons that aren't their fault), or just plain good fortune to be upwardly moble to the degree that they can accomplish what your "extreme example" did...or even what many of us have. But they work hard at the jobs that they do have nonetheless. They're dedicated, work 40 hours a week (often more), and do the best they can...like all the rest of us do. I'm not talking about welfare leeches who choose not to work...I'm talking about millions of hard working people in this country who simply don't, and won't, accomplish what Herman Cain, or many of us, have. Some who have accomplished more than these unfortunate folks mentioned above, view themselves as being superior...when in fact, even though it required hard work and dedication (and the folks I've mentioned above also work hard and are dedicated), they should view themselves as being blessed.
I guess I simply don't share your pessimistic view or generalization as to how heartless or 'arrogant' succesful (and almost always very hard working) people are. I've had the pleasure to meet many and never ONCE did I feel resentful of what they have. I have actually marveled at how generous some are and do tinge a bit wishing I could afford to be as philanthropic but thankfully that just drives me a bit. Did I meet any arrogant jerks? Sure. Have I met any arrogant entitlement jerks? Sure. Have I met any 'hard working paycheck to paycheck folks that are jerks? Sure. It's almost like ... people are people.
You're right in that it's an "extreme" example. Certainly the exception rather than the rule. Millions of Americans will never, never be able to accomplish what your "extreme" example has...or even what many of us have...through no fault of their own. They work at Wal-Mart, Mazzio's, McDonald's, Best Buy, and other similar jobs because that's their station in life. They don't have the cognition, means (financial or otherwise), or ability (for many reasons that aren't their fault), or just plain good fortune to be upwardly moble to the degree that they can accomplish what your "extreme example" did...or even what many of us have. But they work hard at the jobs that they do have nonetheless. They're dedicated, work 40 hours a week (often more), and do the best they can...like all the rest of us do. I'm not talking about welfare leeches who choose not to work...I'm talking about millions of hard working people in this country who simply don't, and won't, accomplish what Herman Cain, or many of us, have. 'SOME' who have accomplished more than these unfortunate folks mentioned above, view themselves as being superior...when in fact, even though it required hard work and dedication (and the folks I've mentioned above also work hard and are dedicated), they should view themselves as being blessed.
I guess I simply don't share your pessimistic view or generalization as to how heartless or 'arrogant' succesful (and almost always very hard working) people are. I've had the pleasure to meet many and never ONCE did I feel resentful of what they have. I have actually marveled at how generous some are and do tinge a bit wishing I could afford to be as philanthropic but thankfully that just drives me a bit. Did I meet any arrogant jerks? Sure. Have I met any arrogant entitlement jerks? Sure. Have I met any 'hard working paycheck to paycheck folks that are jerks? Sure. It's almost like ... people are people.
Hardly a generalization or pessimistic. The word 'some' was used. Regardless, the fact remains that there are 'some' who think that those who don't accomplish financial stability (even though they work hard), or can't afford their own health care because they have no insurance (even though they do the best they can), or don't have a ton of cash saved up for their retirement (even though they are productive members of society)...are worthless and deserve to suffer because they weren't able to accomplish these things...when others have. I'm speaking of hard working people from both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum...many have been blessed, and many have had misfortune...and we'd be wrong to think that those factors don't also play a role in how things turn out for folks.
"Some" of course. But we've catered to "some" long enough. Now it's time for ALL to pay and ALL to have a vested interest.
I guess that's the difference between my line of thinking and yours...you feel like the hardworking, less fortunate folks that I've described above have been "catered" to. I don't. You feel like the hardworking, less fortunate folks that I've described above don't have a vested interest. I believe they do.
By Herman Cain Americans, like my Uncle Leroy and Aunt Bessie, want common-sense solutions � not more fine-tuning. My 9-9-9 plan passes the Leroy & Bessie test.
The 9-9-9 plan, like all of my economic policy, is grounded in three economic guiding principles: Production, not consumption, drives the economy; risk-taking creates growth; and units of measurement must be dependable.
Under my plan, the current personal and corporate tax codes are completely replaced.
There's more. Payroll taxes: gone! The death tax: killed! The alternative minimum tax: don't let the door hit you on the way out! The capital gains tax: zero! Repatriated profits: welcome home, our friend! Double taxation of dividends: eliminated!
If you want a real pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-export, pro-taxpayer plan, this is it:
�A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other U.S. located businesses, and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.
�A 9% personal flat tax. Individuals would deduct charitable contributions, then pay 9% on the rest of their income. Capital gains are excluded. �A 9% national sales tax. This levy would be placed on the consumption of all new goods. Used goods purchased would be excluded.
The 9-9-9 plan is simple, transparent, efficient, fair and neutral. It taxes everything once but nothing twice. There will be the fewest opportunities to evade the tax and the least incentive to do so. More important, the plan will generate the most growth and jobs, and provide certainty to the engine of economic growth � the business sector.
Our country deserves no less. I look forward to working with my fellow patriots to get it done.
"Some" of course. But we've catered to "some" long enough. Now it's time for ALL to pay and ALL to have a vested interest.
I guess that's the difference between my line of thinking and yours...you feel like the hardworking, less fortunate folks that I've described above have been "catered" to. I don't. You feel like the hardworking, less fortunate folks that I've described above don't have a vested interest. I believe they do.
No, the difference between you and I is you keep subscribing incorrect thoughts to me that I won't attempt to subscribe motive to. My point is we have varying levels of 'vested interest' today. From nothing, to unjustifiable 10 figures worth of 'interest'. Since nobody has the stomach for an annual "fee" to be a U.S. citizen, the LEAST we could do is make everyone pay EQUALLY according to their income. But in the bizzaro world we live in a guy making $500k paying 10 times what a guy making $50k does is somehow not "fair". "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" updated for 2011.
If you want a real pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-export, pro-taxpayer plan, this is it:
�A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other U.S. located businesses, and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.
But... but... but.... some here informed me this has nothing to do with helping the economy?
In order for 999 to pass, problems like tax free savings, Roth IRA, would be addressed. ===============
As would a repeal of the 16th.
Yes it would in 999 Phase II.
I have always thought that a Fair tax/national sales tax/consumption tax plan inherently make more sense than any Flat tax/income tax plan based on production.
But I have also thought that a Flat tax/income tax plan is more doable��much easier to get passed as the law of the land. No repeal needed.
As much as I like the Fair Tax and the Cain 999 and its simplicity to help sell it, I like the Newt Gingrich Flat Tax plan better.
More doable because it is full of words like choice-optional-free to choose and other words like Reduce and Abolish�
You're right in that it's an "extreme" example. Certainly the exception rather than the rule. Millions of Americans will never, never be able to accomplish what your "extreme" example has...or even what many of us have...through no fault of their own.
Here's another example. A promising young man graduates from high school and wants to go to college, but his family doesn't have the money to send him so he takes whatever job he can find to earn money. It's 1968 and the kid gets drafted and sent to Vietnam. If you go to DC you can see his name on the wall.
You're right in that it's an "extreme" example. Certainly the exception rather than the rule. Millions of Americans will never, never be able to accomplish what your "extreme" example has...or even what many of us have...through no fault of their own.
Here's another example. A promising young man graduates from high school and wants to go to college, but his family doesn't have the money to send him so he takes whatever job he can find to earn money. It's 1968 and the kid gets drafted and sent to Vietnam. If you go to DC you can see his name on the wall.
Never underestimate the opposition viewpoints ability to at least attempt to stoop.
That is absolutely the plus and should not be dismissed. But then the "poor" will begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The only reason to pay any attention to them is that they VOTE. Get it?
Two candidates to choose from. Canidate A - "Everybody should pay their fair share." Candidate B - "I want the top 40% to pay everything for the bottom 60%".
I am to conclude we should nominate Candidate B, correct?
Here's another example. A promising young man graduates from high school and wants to go to college, but his family doesn't have the money to send him so he takes whatever job he can find to earn money. It's 1968 and the kid gets drafted and sent to Vietnam. If you go to DC you can see his name on the wall.
Many of us came home but I would guess most of us if not all of us know someone who's name is on the wall. A little over 1/3 on the guys in my graduating class were dead 24 months after graduation.
While I agree with you on this Isaac I would like to point out not everyone can do that. I worked two jobs for most of my life. Now working one is no longer a possibility.
Be that as it may reworking the tax system from the beginning and reducing government spend ate two things that must be done.
...many have been blessed, and many have had misfortune...
...and many have made wise choices, and many have made very poor ones....
Yep. I know I've made some poor choices...how about you?
Absolutely. In fact, I've made some very poor ones as well. That said, I have learned from my mistakes and don't make the same ones again. Some folks have to keep touching the burner I guess...
There's this "Empowerment Zone" thing,remember and,compensatory remedies will still be available to those injured. May not always work out the way one would like but they will still be available.
This is all a crebral exercise anyways. Romney and Perry are firmly entrenched on the ground,on a national level,while each raking in approximately 14 million a month. Cain has a million on hand without any huge financial backers announcing any movement in his direction. If he can't compete on a national level and in the TV markets with 100 million plus in the bank by the end of December,he's in deep trouble.
Lastly,he best figure out a way to get out from underneath his dogmatism in regards the sales tax portion of his plan or he's going to quickly fade over the course of the next couple of months. Sales tax ain't gonna fly,period. Sorry,it's just the reality!
As far as I can see there aren't any options for those who are injured now. FOAD is about all I have been told for the last ten years. And I sure as hell am not moving to Detroit so I can get lower taxes!
I am just too damed stubborn to listen.
And I will gladly pay my share. I like Cain's plan. I think it will be good for Americans across the board.
It's 1968 and the kid gets drafted and sent to Vietnam. If you go to DC you can see his name on the wall. ================
WTF? That example was supposed to corroborate what,again?
I can safely say your example would not have to pay any of the 9s!
Over 63% of this country wants tax reform. Both sides wish for it. It's going to happen. If it cuts into your entitlements,TS. Take on a second job.
It of course wasn't supposed to corroborate with anything (if it actually was supposed to, the fail was definitely epic). It's called being out of ammo and desperation. It's what the
This is all a crebral exercise anyways. Romney and Perry are firmly entrenched on the ground,on a national level,while each raking in approximately 14 million a month. Cain has a million on hand without any huge financial backers announcing any movement in his direction. If he can't compete on a national level and in the TV markets with 100 million plus in the bank by the end of December,he's in deep trouble.
Lastly,he best figure out a way to get out from underneath his dogmatism in regards the sales tax portion of his plan or he's going to quickly fade over the course of the next couple of months. Sales tax ain't gonna fly,period. Sorry,it's just the reality!
I agree with you on the sales tax issue, it's a problem.
Scott, Your attitude, especially taken in context with your apparent personal situation, is refreshing beyond explanation. At the risk of using a truly and unfortunately overused phrase, you sir ARE a great American!
That's due to the fact that you have values and honor. It's not in your ("our" as most here, I believe, fall in that category) nature to be a freeloader.
The issue is that there is the "army of schit" that has no such compunction. They are more than happy to keep drinking case after case of Nattie Light and chain smoking their "assistance" away. Feeding the homeless to the hungry sounds better each day.
That looks simple enough.Of course there would have to be legislation introduced in both Houses to make it into law.
What should be the "starting line" for the "over/under" bettors concerning how many pages the actual Bill will consist of?
500? If so, I'll bet the "over".It could take 100 pages to define this:
"Businesses would deduct purchases from other U.S. located businesses ."
'nuther question : Is the majority of the "tweaking" in the 500+ pages gonna be for the benefit of the taxpayer making less than 500K but more than 30K ?
Or will the tweaking be to appease BIG BUSINESS and the folks making less than 30 K ?
Many of us came home but I would guess most of us if not all of us know someone who's name is on the wall. A little over 1/3 on the guys in my graduating class were dead 24 months after graduation.
Unfortunately, there are too many men who share your experience. I don't know if you feel that what you experienced had a negative effect on your success in the economy over the years since you came home, but what's certain is that none of the Wall Street fat cats could make so much money if not for the sacrifice of men like you and those who didn't make it home.
The reason the progressive income tax is justified is that no one makes money in our economy apart from the work and sacrifice of others.
No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. -- Theodore Roosevelt
That is absolutely the plus and should not be dismissed. But then the "poor" will begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The only reason to pay any attention to them is that they VOTE. Get it?
Two candidates to choose from. Canidate A - "Everybody should pay their fair share." Candidate B - "I want the top 40% to pay everything for the bottom 60%".
I am to conclude we should nominate Candidate B, correct?
Get it?
Obviously no one is going to convince you the progressive income tax is just, and that's really not the point anyway.
Originally Posted by GeauxLSU
If Cain wins the primary and America is foolish enough to pick Obama... AGAIN... well honestly... too bad for us.
So you would rather nominate Cain and lose to Obama than nominate Romney and send Obama packing. Whatever your reasons, I strongly disagree.
Maybe we should consider taking a look over the cliff, down below, before we jump. We certainly shouldn't great idea on paper our way to 4 more years of Obama. Studiously thinking it through isn't a character flaw,imo.
I hope your skills of clairvoyance are dusty, otherwise we're [bleep].
George
Are you saying a Romney-Cain ticket can't beat Obama, or are you saying Romney can't do a better job than Obama, or are you hoping Obama wins a second term?
Obviously no one is going to convince you the progressive income tax is just, and that's really not the point anyway.
So you would rather nominate Cain and lose to Obama than nominate Romney and send Obama packing. Whatever your reasons, I strongly disagree.
On point one you are 100% correct. See... we ARE making 'progress'. On your second question I don't buy into your forgone conclusion by a long shot. How about this, Cain is the only one who can beat Obama so don't bother with any other candidate. It has as much validity as your assertion (except mine actually has some recent polls to support it).
That's due to the fact that you have values and honor. It's not in your ("our" as most here, I believe, fall in that category) nature to be a freeloader.
The issue is that there is the "army of schit" that has no such compunction. They are more than happy to keep drinking case after case of Nattie Light and chain smoking their "assistance" away. Feeding the homeless to the hungry sounds better each day.
George
There are two categories here. First are those who think welfare is a profession. This group need a rude awakening and today is not soon enough. These people need to go to work or starve. They are NOT the tax payer"s problem.
The second group are those who are bent, spindled and mutated to the point that working is not an option. This group would not be the tax payer's problem if the Church were doing it's job instead of building huge glass monuments to fancy preachers.
Those hurt in service of this country are about the only people out there who should be taken care of by the tax payers.
Just the opinions of one old man who read his Bible.
And on your 'church' point. I had a heated (and pointless) discussion with a raging self professed liberal a few weeks ago. When I informed her I'd gladly give to charity/church, TWICE every single dollar that my taxes got reduced to help those deserving of it that got 'forgotten' by any inefficient fraud ridden government program that got the axe, she gave me the "you're heartless, I don't want to live in your world". I then asked her how this country survived without all those entitlements 50 years ago and her answer? "I don't know." The sad thing is... in her mind... she genuinely doesn't. She will be voting for Obama again. And by the way she is Jewish. He's been such a friend to Israel and all...... but at least he's not a Republican (aka the debul).
Gotta challenge the idea that the poorest kids are cannon fodder for the rich. MYTH. You do not need much google-fu to find out that the lowest socioeconomic groups are UNDERREPRESENTED in the US military.
Besides that, it had about as much to do with the discussion as the names of all the microbes that cause gas gangrene.
I share concerns about the poor but, the feds are like pimps who say they really care about their girls, the poor. No sale. Whoever said a job is the best welfare program was right. Govt. dependency is corrosive to the human spirit and metastatically malignant.
In a rational discussion of this topic, global, utopian standards help no one. Where are things the best and why? Where are things the worst and why? What has proven helpful in the past? Perfection is a red herring.
Why does it matter what someone else has if they came by it honestly? I wish there was a Bill Gates in every town, a dozen in every city. The politics of envy promulgated by pandering self serving sleazy politicians (and their dirtbags - - um er --constituents) make me want to puke. Thriving people beget thriving people.
On your second question I don't buy into your forgone conclusion by a long shot. How about this Cain is the only one who can beat Obama so don't bother with any other candidate.
Historically, people vote their pocketbook when that's an issue. There's been many links provided on this topic showing the MSM is making sure the masses know that Cain's 999 plan raises their taxes.
Originally Posted by GeauxLSU
It has as much validity as your assertion (except mine actually has some recent polls to support it).
The Real Clear Politics average of national polls as of Oct 10 has Obama beating Cain by 8.0 percent. Do you have a link the polls you cite to support your position?
Real Clear Politics for Romney vs Obama has Obama beating Romney by 0.7 percent.
That's why a Romney-Cain ticket may be what's needed to defeat Obama. Obama's best hope is for the sour-grapes attitude you exhibit to splinter the conservative base.
I hope your skills of clairvoyance are dusty, otherwise we're [bleep].
George
Are you saying a Romney-Cain ticket can't beat Obama, or are you saying Romney can't do a better job than Obama, or are you hoping Obama wins a second term?
Romney is a Masshole RINO. I'm not sure he can beat The Magic Muslim een with Cain on the ticket. Even if he could, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two.
Schit, I'm not sure a strong conservative can salvage the ship at this point.
That's due to the fact that you have values and honor. It's not in your ("our" as most here, I believe, fall in that category) nature to be a freeloader.
The issue is that there is the "army of schit" that has no such compunction. They are more than happy to keep drinking case after case of Nattie Light and chain smoking their "assistance" away. Feeding the homeless to the hungry sounds better each day.
George
There are two categories here. First are those who think welfare is a profession. This group need a rude awakening and today is not soon enough. These people need to go to work or starve. They are NOT the tax payer"s problem.
The second group are those who are bent, spindled and mutated to the point that working is not an option. This group would not be the tax payer's problem if the Church were doing it's job instead of building huge glass monuments to fancy preachers.
Those hurt in service of this country are about the only people out there who should be taken care of by the tax payers.
Just the opinions of one old man who read his Bible.
Not much for me to find fault with, my friend. In regards to your second group, though, the Church "should" assist but the family should be the primary support system if they are able.
Gotta challenge the idea that the poorest kids are cannon fodder for the rich. MYTH. You do not need much google-fu to find out that the lowest socioeconomic groups are UNDERREPRESENTED in the US military.
Besides that, it had about as much to do with the discussion as the names of all the microbes that cause gas gangrene.
I share concerns about the poor but, the feds are like pimps who say they really care about their girls, the poor. No sale. Whoever said a job is the best welfare program was right. Govt. dependency is corrosive to the human spirit and metastatically malignant.
In a rational discussion of this topic, global, utopian standards help no one. Where are things the best and why? Where are things the worst and why? What has proven helpful in the past? Perfection is a red herring.
Why does it matter what someone else has if they came by it honestly? I wish there was a Bill Gates in every town, a dozen in every city. The politics of envy promulgated by pandering self serving sleazy politicians (and their dirtbags - - um er --constituents) make me want to puke. Thriving people beget thriving people.
Some here have the notion that supporting the progressive income tax is equivalent to supporting freeloaders. That's far from the truth. Many who pay no income tax at all are retire folks who live off Social Security. Roth IRA, and savings to a large degree. This is money these people have already paid income tax on. Do you really think it's fair to tax them again on that same money? That's what Cain�s plan would do.
The current income tax allows parents a deduction for each child, but Cain's plan doesn't. If you think that's fair then you don't understand the societal benefit of raising the next generation of law abiding citizens who will make positive contributions to society in the future. The tax deduction for kids is an investment with proven returns.
Cain's plan eliminates the payroll tax. That's a savings of 7.65% for businesses. However, his plan doesn't allow employers to deduct the wages they pay to employees. Bottom line, Cain's plan increases the taxes on wages by 2.04 percent. How's that going to increase employment?
A farmer hires two kids to pick apples. Neither kid can reach the apples, so the smaller kid gets on the shoulder of the other kid so he can pick the apples. When they settle up with the farmer the smaller kid says he picked all the apples and being that's what the farmer said he would pay for, he should get all the money. Apparently you agree with the smaller kid (Bill Gates).
On your second question I don't buy into your forgone conclusion by a long shot. How about this Cain is the only one who can beat Obama so don't bother with any other candidate.
Historically, people vote their pocketbook when that's an issue. There's been many links provided on this topic showing the MSM is making sure the masses know that Cain's 999 plan raises their taxes.
Originally Posted by GeauxLSU
It has as much validity as your assertion (except mine actually has some recent polls to support it).
The Real Clear Politics average of national polls as of Oct 10 has Obama beating Cain by 8.0 percent. Do you have a link the polls you cite to support your position?
Real Clear Politics for Romney vs Obama has Obama beating Romney by 0.7 percent.
That's why a Romney-Cain ticket may be what's needed to defeat Obama. Obama's best hope is for the sour-grapes attitude you exhibit to splinter the conservative base.
Mac, Here you go http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/October_Poll.pdf Start on page 14 and pay special note to the negative scores. And realize that is now 3 days old BEFORE the last debate and his latest surge upward. Then... when you get to page 17 note what people say is more important (ability to beat BO vs views in line with theirs). I'm sure YOU feel Romney is "the only one that can beat Obama". The FACT is each will get the ABO vote but many will NOT pull the lever for Obamalite.
Romney is a Masshole RINO. I'm not sure he can beat The Magic Muslim een with Cain on the ticket. Even if he could, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two.
You're giving Obama a lot of credit saying he's just as good at running the nation as someone who has decades of private sector experience, a person who would open up drilling in the U.S., a person who would end the regulation war on businesses, a person who would repeal Obama care, and that's just 3 of Romney's 56 point plan.
. . . so they would just increase 999 to 12-12-12 to make up for it. Cain has never been able to explain how 999 wouldn't increase given he could only block such increases for 8 years max.
Cain has explained more than once that in his legislation he would require a 2/3 majority of Congress to increase any of the "9's" . . . He explained that the people would not allow an increase.
I'm not giving O any credit as I've seen what he's done to us for the last few years. I'm also not giving Romney much credit as it's easy for me to look south and see Mass.
Romney can roll out a 56 point plan and sell it any way he wants. ObamaCare was modeled after what? Yeah.....Romney is a real conservative .
Mac, Here you go http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/October_Poll.pdf Start on page 14 and pay special note to the negative scores. And realize that is now 3 days old BEFORE the last debate and his latest surge upward. Then... when you get to page 17 note what people say is more important (ability to beat BO vs views in line with theirs). I'm sure YOU feel Romney is "the only one that can beat Obama". The FACT is each will get the ABO vote but many will NOT pull the lever for Obamalite.
Thanks for the link. However, the poll you cite applies to the Republican primary, not the general election. The polls I cited are Cain vs Obama and Romney vs Obama. I can�t find any such polls that show Cain winning against Obama.
My number one top goal is to send Obama packing, so I will support the Republican who has the best chance of defeating Obama in the general election, whoever that Republican is. Right now that�s Romney. Cain would be great if he had spent more time developing a better tax plan, one that didn�t raise taxes on 40 million plus voters.
PPS Many of the folks paying the retired folks who caused this mess (I'm retired) ain't gunna get anything when they get there. Oldtrapper's law number 1: Always trust math more than politicians.
. . . so they would just increase 999 to 12-12-12 to make up for it. Cain has never been able to explain how 999 wouldn't increase given he could only block such increases for 8 years max.
Cain has explained more than once that in his legislation he would require a 2/3 majority of Congress to increase any of the "9's" . . . He explained that the people would not allow an increase.
Which demonstrates Cain's lack of experience. Nothing one Congress does can't be undone by the next Congress including Cain's requirement of a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. A simple majority can repeal any prior legislation and then vote to increase taxes. Only a constitution amendment can bind future Congresses.
PS Taxes on wages, for wage earners, does not bother me one bit as an employer. I have more money left over to hire more folks.
Actually, as an employer, you would see a 2.04% increase in the taxes you would pay on the wages you pay under Cain's plan. Regardless of how you feel about that, it raises the price of American labor, so more jobs will go overseas. That's not going to fix the economy.
Not much for me to find fault with, my friend. In regards to your second group, though, the Church "should" assist but the family should be the primary support system if they are able.
Hardly, a lowering of business taxes and an increase on consumption shifts the tax burden away from the American business and puts more on the imports, making American producers more competitive, once again allowing me to hire more folks.
Mac, Here you go http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/October_Poll.pdf Start on page 14 and pay special note to the negative scores. And realize that is now 3 days old BEFORE the last debate and his latest surge upward. Then... when you get to page 17 note what people say is more important (ability to beat BO vs views in line with theirs). I'm sure YOU feel Romney is "the only one that can beat Obama". The FACT is each will get the ABO vote but many will NOT pull the lever for Obamalite.
Thanks for the link. However, the poll you cite applies to the Republican primary, not the general election. The polls I cited are Cain vs Obama and Romney vs Obama. I can�t find any such polls that show Cain winning against Obama.
My number one top goal is to send Obama packing, so I will support the Republican who has the best chance of defeating Obama in the general election, whoever that Republican is. Right now that�s Romney. Cain would be great if he had spent more time developing a better tax plan, one that didn�t raise taxes on 40 million plus voters.
. . . so they would just increase 999 to 12-12-12 to make up for it. Cain has never been able to explain how 999 wouldn't increase given he could only block such increases for 8 years max.
Cain has explained more than once that in his legislation he would require a 2/3 majority of Congress to increase any of the "9's" . . . He explained that the people would not allow an increase.
Which demonstrates Cain's lack of experience. Nothing one Congress does can't be undone by the next Congress including Cain's requirement of a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. A simple majority can repeal any prior legislation and then vote to increase taxes. Only a constitution amendment can bind future Congresses.
Again, Mr. Cain's other and valid, probably more valid than any legislative constraints, is the fact for ONCE in every American's lifetime they will actually KNOW what they pay in taxes. Any attempt to raise taxes would be immediately known by and affect EVERYONE. How well do you think that attempt would go? Today they change rates, they change brackets, they change deductions, they change exemptions, carry forward rules, etc... etc... and it's always to the detriment of "the other guy". People have NO clue if their individual rate changes from year to year which is exactly the point of having such a system.
The current income tax allows parents a deduction for each child, but Cain's plan doesn't. If you think that's fair then you don't understand the societal benefit of raising the next generation of law abiding citizens who will make positive contributions to society in the future. The tax deduction for kids is an investment with proven returns.
Wow. THIS sums up the whole debate perfectly. MacLorry, you obviously favor the government deciding what is 'good' in relations to families huh? Perfect. The same government that is legalizing homosexual marriage you want involved in deciding if or how many children those "familes" (by THEIR definition by the way) should have and doing so by financially rewarding some and penalizing those that don't fall in line? Seriously? So your neighbor who chooses NOT to have kids needs to subsidize YOUR kids. The government shouldn't give deductions (which presumably we both acknowledge is preferential treatment) to ANYONE, ANY COMPANY, or ANY ACTIVITY. Once again, that is VOTE BUYING at the cost of other Americans. What's better for the economy than home ownership? My goodness surely we don't want to eliminate the interest deduction on mortgages do we? I mean the government knows how to handle the financial housing market..... right? FYI - I am married, have a son and mortgage interest. I should not be subsidized (3 different times) by my widowed co-worker who lost his family in an accident and rents. It is immoral.
PS Taxes on wages, for wage earners, does not bother me one bit as an employer. I have more money left over to hire more folks.
Actually, as an employer, you would see a 2.04% increase in the taxes you would pay on the wages you pay under Cain's plan. Regardless of how you feel about that, it raises the price of American labor, so more jobs will go overseas. That's not going to fix the economy.
Well, that's not right and Mac Lorry steps in it again. Typical for this guy. Capital gains for businesses would drop from 35% to 9%!! Businesses would be allowed to expense capital investments at 100% the year they were purchased!! The CBO has scored it as an economic winner, fwiw. While all aspects are not fully vetted, the 999 is kind of a hybrid consumption tax. There would be a transitional period where allowances will have to be made, ie. ROTH IRA's. It will raise federal tax for the bottom 48% from zero to 9%. but that doesn't mean a) your pay won't go up and b)9% of a wage is better than zero income.
I don't know if the present tax system will or ever can be repealed. There are just too many special interests involved.
It is foolish to quote polling numbers at this stage in the game. They are changing daily as the candidates continue to be vetted.
The current income tax allows parents a deduction for each child, but Cain's plan doesn't. If you think that's fair then you don't understand the societal benefit of raising the next generation of law abiding citizens who will make positive contributions to society in the future. The tax deduction for kids is an investment with proven returns.
Wow. THIS sums up the whole debate perfectly. MacLorry, you obviously favor the government deciding what is 'good' in relations to families huh? Perfect. The same government that is legalizing homosexual marriage you want involved in deciding if or how many children those "familes" (by THEIR definition by the way) should have and doing so by financially rewarding some and penalizing those that don't fall in line? Seriously? So your neighbor who chooses NOT to have kids needs to subsidize YOUR kids. The government shouldn't give deductions (which presumably we both acknowledge is preferential treatment) to ANYONE, ANY COMPANY, or ANY ACTIVITY. Once again, that is VOTE BUYING at the cost of other Americans. What's better for the economy than home ownership? My goodness surely we don't want to eliminate the interest deduction on mortgages do we? I mean the government knows how to handle the financial housing market..... right? FYI - I am married, have a son and mortgage interest. I should not be subsidized (3 different times) by my widowed co-worker who lost his family in an accident and rents. It is immoral.
Right on LSU!! Mac the Great is an elitist snob who knows how we all should think. Where is the link between a "child deduction" and raising that same child to be a productive member of society. Hey, Mac the Great, show us any relevant research that shows a link between child tax deductions and "proven returns". Are you an "analyst" for the teachers union?
Hardly, a lowering of business taxes and an increase on consumption shifts the tax burden away from the American business and puts more on the imports, making American producers more competitive, once again allowing me to hire more folks.
While Cain's plan may lower the overall taxes on business it increases the cost of labor by 2.04%, which makes it even cheaper to send jobs overseas. It's the loss of millions of good paying jobs that's the real problem in the U.S., not the tax code, and Cain's plan makes job loss worse.
Right on LSU!! Mac the Great is an elitist snob who knows how we all should think. Where is the link between a "child deduction" and raising that same child to be a productive member of society. Hey, Mac the Great, show us any relevant research that shows a link between child tax deductions and "proven returns". Are you an "analyst" for the teachers union?
By his logic (Government financially encouraging/supporting child birth) "entitlement" families ought to be raising some of the most productive kids on earth.
Again, Mr. Cain's other and valid, probably more valid than any legislative constraints, is the fact for ONCE in every American's lifetime they will actually KNOW what they pay in taxes. Any attempt to raise taxes would be immediately known by and affect EVERYONE. How well do you think that attempt would go? Today they change rates, they change brackets, they change deductions, they change exemptions, carry forward rules, etc... etc... and it's always to the detriment of "the other guy". People have NO clue if their individual rate changes from year to year which is exactly the point of having such a system.
I was debunking Cain's claim of requiring a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. Nothing you wrote disputes how misgudded that notion is.
As for it not changing, well that's nonsense given Cain's own plan is to change it to the so-called "Fair Tax", and that rate will be much different.
Wait, wait! I've just decided that I SUPPORT the 9-9-9- tax plan, based on a report that I'll pay a lot less under this plan than under the current tax structure.
Headline "Herman Cain�s 9-9-9 Tax Plan: Winners and Losers"
"As GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain touts his catchy 9-9-9 tax plan, one image comes to mind: an ad for a delicious-looking pizza that is nothing more than an empty promise. Sure, that image is mouth-watering, but when you open the box and take one bite, you�re sorely disappointed.
"This is an apt metaphor for the former CEO of Godfather�s Pizza, who is the flavor of the week in the GOP beauty contest. The plan is as simple as it sounds: blow up the current tax code and replace it with a 9 percent personal flat tax, a 9 percent corporate flat tax and a 9 percent national sales tax. Get it? 9-9-9! You can almost hear Ron Popeil voicing the ad �it slices, it dices, it�s Herman Cain�s 9-9-9 plan!�
"But like with many slick ads, the product doesn�t live up to the hype.
"The first problem is the plan is short on details, so economists are having a tough time crunching the numbers. That said, we can identify some losers out of the gate � the nearly 40 percent of Americans who do not pay income tax, would now pay 9 percent. Cain has said that there would his plan would protect those living below the poverty line, but he didn�t say how that would happen.
"How about the average worker? Cain has said these folks would make out, because �You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent,� he said. �That goes to 9 percent. That�s a 6 percentage point difference.� Except it isn�t, because workers only pay one-half of the payroll tax, or 7.65 percent. So 9 percent flat income tax rate would increase taxes by 1.35 percentage points, or more than 17 percent.
"Winners under Cain�s plan include higher earning taxpayers, who would see a great benefit under the 9-9-9 plan. The reason is that many of the wealthiest Americans pay the lion�s share of their taxes on income from investments and capital gains. Under Cain�s plan, those two taxes disappear. Small business owners would also score, because they could pay themselves with dividends (which would no longer be taxed) instead of wages."
Hell, let the poor pay for 2 unfunded wars and more of my share! I want mine!!!
Hardly, a lowering of business taxes and an increase on consumption shifts the tax burden away from the American business and puts more on the imports, making American producers more competitive, once again allowing me to hire more folks.
While Cain's plan may lower the overall taxes on business it increases the cost of labor by 2.04%, which makes it even cheaper to send jobs overseas. It's the loss of millions of good paying jobs that's the real problem in the U.S., not the tax code, and Cain's plan makes job loss worse.
Keep repeating your imbecilic statements!! Cain is a successful businessman who forgot more economic sense then our little Warlord ever knew!
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
Wait, wait! I've just decided that I SUPPORT the 9-9-9- tax plan, based on a report that I'll pay a lot less under this plan than under the current tax structure.
Headline "Herman Cain�s 9-9-9 Tax Plan: Winners and Losers"
"As GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain touts his catchy 9-9-9 tax plan, one image comes to mind: an ad for a delicious-looking pizza that is nothing more than an empty promise. Sure, that image is mouth-watering, but when you open the box and take one bite, you�re sorely disappointed.
"This is an apt metaphor for the former CEO of Godfather�s Pizza, who is the flavor of the week in the GOP beauty contest. The plan is as simple as it sounds: blow up the current tax code and replace it with a 9 percent personal flat tax, a 9 percent corporate flat tax and a 9 percent national sales tax. Get it? 9-9-9! You can almost hear Ron Popeil voicing the ad �it slices, it dices, it�s Herman Cain�s 9-9-9 plan!�
"But like with many slick ads, the product doesn�t live up to the hype.
"The first problem is the plan is short on details, so economists are having a tough time crunching the numbers. That said, we can identify some losers out of the gate � the nearly 40 percent of Americans who do not pay income tax, would now pay 9 percent. Cain has said that there would his plan would protect those living below the poverty line, but he didn�t say how that would happen.
"How about the average worker? Cain has said these folks would make out, because �You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent,� he said. �That goes to 9 percent. That�s a 6 percentage point difference.� Except it isn�t, because workers only pay one-half of the payroll tax, or 7.65 percent. So 9 percent flat income tax rate would increase taxes by 1.35 percentage points, or more than 17 percent.
"Winners under Cain�s plan include higher earning taxpayers, who would see a great benefit under the 9-9-9 plan. The reason is that many of the wealthiest Americans pay the lion�s share of their taxes on income from investments and capital gains. Under Cain�s plan, those two taxes disappear. Small business owners would also score, because they could pay themselves with dividends (which would no longer be taxed) instead of wages."
Hell, let the poor pay for 2 unfunded wars and more of my share! I want mine!!!
999 does away with depreciation schedules,right? A business just expenses all purchases in the year they are made,right?
And all material purchased to make products is subject to the 9% sales tax.There is no requirement for a year-end inventory under 999.
So the company can sell unneeded items from its' inventory to another U.S.company and collect no tax because the items are used.
And used machinery just drifts thru the stream of commerce forever untaxed.
I don't believe there is a way in hell to estimate how much revenue the Nat'l Sales Tax will generate.It is just too much of a game changer for the way companies do business.
Where to even start on such an objective analysis. I especially like all the little demeaning comments in the intro. At least you know what tripe you are about to be subjected to. I'll just pick one...
Originally Posted by djs
Except it isn�t, because workers only pay one-half of the payroll tax, or 7.65 percent.
Yep.... just like corporations pay tax and not customers.... People are nothing if not gullible. It is interesting how this so obviously undesirable and clearly unworkable and unpassable plan has so many 'objective reporters' all a flutter.
Wow. THIS sums up the whole debate perfectly. MacLorry, you obviously favor the government deciding what is 'good' in relations to families huh? Perfect. The same government that is legalizing homosexual marriage you want involved in deciding if or how many children those "familes" (by THEIR definition by the way) should have and doing so by financially rewarding some and penalizing those that don't fall in line? Seriously? So your neighbor who chooses NOT to have kids needs to subsidize YOUR kids. The government shouldn't give deductions (which presumably we both acknowledge is preferential treatment) to ANYONE, ANY COMPANY, or ANY ACTIVITY. Once again, that is VOTE BUYING at the cost of other Americans. What's better for the economy than home ownership? My goodness surely we don't want to eliminate the interest deduction on mortgages do we? I mean the government knows how to handle the financial housing market..... right? FYI - I am married, have a son and mortgage interest. I should not be subsidized (3 different times) by my widowed co-worker who lost his family in an accident and rents. It is immoral.
Giving an exemption per child so that families can properly care for their children has nothing to do with your off-the-deep-end rant about government social engineering. Who do you think is going to run the nation in the future if not the next generation of law abiding, well educated citizens? And where do you think such people come from? Do you understand what it means to "invest in the future" or what the term "human capital" means. Likely not or you wouldn't post such nonsense.
However I do wonder where and how SSI and Medicare will be funded? Your listed pay stub portion of 7.65% comprises of 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare. That times 2 is 15.3%.
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
And these companies are going to give all their employees a 7.65% raise just as soon as 999 is implemented?
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
Whoop, I'm about 100% convinced the same couple of shills are either just yanking our chain or in fact being paid. Nobody is simultaneously that uninformed AND that vehemently opinionated.
Giving an exemption per child so that families can properly care for their children has nothing to do with your off-the-deep-end rant about government social engineering. Who do you think is going to run the nation in the future if not the next generation of law abiding, well educated citizens? And where do you think such people come from? Do you understand what it means to "invest in the future" or what the term "human capital" means. Likely not or you wouldn't post such nonsense.
Wow! You are off the chart statist. At least you don't hide it.
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
And these companies are going to give all their employees a 7.65% raise just as soon as 999 is implemented?
Keep going... what will they do with that money? It was a payroll expense. You tell us. But remember... now all their competition has the exact same cost structure...
Ok, that's one poll form 10/6 showing Cain beating Obama by 1.0%. The Real Clear Politics average of several national polls as of Oct 10 has Obama beating Cain by 8.0 percent. Maybe people are learning about the tax increases they face with Cain�s 999 plan.
Giving an exemption per child so that families can properly care for their children has nothing to do with your off-the-deep-end rant about government social engineering. Who do you think is going to run the nation in the future if not the next generation of law abiding, well educated citizens? And where do you think such people come from? Do you understand what it means to "invest in the future" or what the term "human capital" means. Likely not or you wouldn't post such nonsense.
Wow! You are off the chart statist. At least you don't hide it.
If you mean you don't hide your short sightedness, I agree.
The last time I looked, the "child tax credit" was $1000 per child. Tell us Mac the Great how that is such a great redeeming social value? Do you kiss your union card when you type this drivel? Hell, the tax credit on the Chevy Volt is $7500! The government values the worthless green car more than your child! Your "polar orbit" has taken you to places beyond our wildest dreams.
1) 999 does away with depreciation schedules,right? 2) A business just expenses all purchases in the year they are made,right?
3) And all material purchased to make products is subject to the 9% sales tax.
4) There is no requirement for a year-end inventory under 999.
5) So the company can sell unneeded items from its' inventory to another U.S.company and collect no tax because the items are used.
6) And used machinery just drifts thru the stream of commerce forever untaxed.
7) I don't believe there is a way in hell to estimate how much revenue the Nat'l Sales Tax will generate. 8) is just too much of a game changer for the way companies do business.
1) Yes (thank God! less vote buying) 2) Yes 3) No 4) No 5) No but it's not because it's "used". Inventory is not 'used'. B2B is tax exempt, same as #3. 6) Yes... just like it does now.... just like it always has.... 7) Not precisely no but there is certainly a way to estimate it. 8) Are you suggesting because it's "different" and infinitely easier (read - LESS COSTLY TO ADMINSTER) for business that that is actually a deterrent to having it pass?
I don't believe there is a way in hell to estimate how much revenue the Nat'l Sales Tax will generate.It is just too much of a game changer for the way companies do business.
You can bet your sweet ass Cain has it figured to give the gubmint more of our money to waste than the current tax system !
Giving an exemption per child so that families can properly care for their children has nothing to do with your off-the-deep-end rant about government social engineering. Who do you think is going to run the nation in the future if not the next generation of law abiding, well educated citizens? And where do you think such people come from? Do you understand what it means to "invest in the future" or what the term "human capital" means. Likely not or you wouldn't post such nonsense.
Just need to post that again for posterity. MacLorry talking about the justification/need for the federal child tax credit.
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
And these companies are going to give all their employees a 7.65% raise just as soon as 999 is implemented?
Not necessarily. There would have to be a payroll shift if something this different is implemented. Of course if the employee didn't get their 7.65% increase, they could always resign. You know, to show the business how much they dislike them!
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
And these companies are going to give all their employees a 7.65% raise just as soon as 999 is implemented?
Keep going... what will they do with that money? It was a payroll expense. You tell us. But remember... now all their competition has the exact same cost structure...
And the employee has a paycheck 7.65%larger than before.And a 9% sales tax on what he buys with it.
It is stupidly dishonest to say he is better off on THAT score.Maybe he makes out on the 9% income tax , but if he gives up a couple of deductions for kids,he may be hammered on that also.
999 is an easy sell in theory,but it will go down in flames and take Mr.Cain with it,I'm thinking.It's just too easy to fault.
999 will take its' place in history alongside Ross Perot's flip charts.
I don't believe there is a way in hell to estimate how much revenue the Nat'l Sales Tax will generate.It is just too much of a game changer for the way companies do business.
You can bet your sweet ass Cain has it figured to give the gubmint more of our money to waste than the current tax system !
I don't believe there is a way in hell to estimate how much revenue the Nat'l Sales Tax will generate.It is just too much of a game changer for the way companies do business.
You can bet your sweet ass Cain has it figured to give the gubmint more of our money to waste than the current tax system !
And we are making this sure bet based on which facts again?
Nevermind... I found it. He needs it to fund that bigger 'gubmint' he supports. Here it is in his own words.
http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues Reduce Government Spending It is no secret that federal government spending is out of control. They view the American taxpayers as a bottomless piggybank for their wasteful programs and expansion of power. And we the people will not tolerate it any longer.
The massive debt caused by liberal policies will be passed onto our children and grandchildren if we do not stop it. They will be stuck with the tab for the government takeover of health care, industry bailouts and failed stimulus packages. They will be the ones approached with outstretched palms by the Chinese to pay back the billions upon billions we owe them. Each generation of Americans should seek to leave behind a better and more prosperous nation for the next, not saddle them with debt from reckless spending.
Though it might not be politically popular to modernize and eliminate some of our entitlement programs, responsible leaders should be willing to do it all the same. They must be prepared to make tough choices and learn to simply say �no.� This can only happen when our elected officials stop being politicians and start being leaders. Simply put: there is no �Department of Happy� in Washington, D.C.
Nothing should be off the table. Every federal agency, every government program and expenditure must be reviewed and revised with a keen eye and a red pen. Leaders should be willing to shrink budgets by target percentages, and those charged with implementing those changes must be held accountable.
And it works! I have served as an executive of several major corporations. When times were tough and money was tight, I asked our employees to cut back drastically, and explained why it was necessary, and they did. We have all had to make difficult decisions in our own household or at our work place. Serious but responsible belt tightening can save businesses, and it can also save our country with the right leadership.
And the employee has a paycheck 7.65%larger than before.And a 9% sales tax on what he buys with it.
It is stupidly dishonest to say he is better off on THAT score.Maybe he makes out on the 9% income tax , but if he gives up a couple of deductions for kids,he may be hammered on that also.
999 is an easy sell in theory,but it will go down in flames and take Mr.Cain with it,I'm thinking.It's just too easy to fault.
999 will take its' place in history alongside Ross Perot's flip charts.
Shoot. I was so hopeful but I think you lost focus again. Stay with it. What happens to the 'second' 7.65% of payroll expense that "the company pays". You said (or implied) they wouldn't give it to the employees right? So what happens to it....
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
It appears by the comments that many worship at the shrine of a terribly progressive income tax system. Well, maybe its damn time the bottom 48% pay their fair share? You know, the old "skin in the game" argument. Whether its 5% or 9%, the bottom 48% would be a little more attentive as to how their "investments" are being spent, rather than just voting for a name with a (D) after it. You know, those (D) politicians who keep "giving" to the bottom 48% so they still support them next time?
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
This, from a Paulbot, backing a man who has NEVER accomplished a damned thing except talking.
Small business owners would also score, because they could pay themselves with dividends (which would no longer be taxed) instead of wages."
As pointed out, this article is wrong on many fronts, and here is one more example. Dividends from C corporations are paid from after-tax profits; therefore, this description is misleading. Corporations would pay 9% on corporate profits, and so if dividend income is tax-exempt under the 999 plan - good. That income has already been taxed.
In the case of S corporations, shareholders can presently take distributions instead of salary/wages to try and avoid/minimize the amount of payroll taxes paid on the S corp's income. HOWEVER, the IRS has strict rules in place that require the owners of an S corporation to take a reasonable amount paid as a salary, on which payroll taxes must be paid. I see no reason why a similar requirement could not be worked into the 999 plan, which would require the owners to draw a reasonable amount of taxable income.
What is your source to document that statement? =======================
A 12 pack.
I had that thought but figured it had to be something stronger. The 12 pack might explain the (bathroom) breaks though. I figured it was checking the DU website for talking points.
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
This, from a Paulbot, backing a man who has NEVER accomplished a damned thing except talking.
Priceless...
Another one? I thought there was only 3? Are they multiplying? Why aren't his poll numbers then?
All I know is once upon a time Godfathers sold me a coupon book for a "good" deal on the regular pizza we had every week. Then they shut the doors and basicly told me to go ### off when I called. This was a planned scam before bankruptcy, so much for the good honest businessman.
If we have a national sales tax, like socialist europe, then give us the benefits.
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
You've got to put on your thinking cap a little tighter. If you lower the corporate tax rate let's say from 35% to 9%, the government would get less revenue if the same dollars were earned by company X. However, what happens every time its tried, company X, seeing a lower rate, will grow its company because now a 9%, or 15% or even a 20% rate is a "deal". So company X expands its business, hires more people and makes much more money! The government GETS MORE REVENUE, EVEN AT A LOWER RATE! It worked under JFK, Reagan, Clinton in '93 and "W".
All I know is once upon a time Godfathers sold me a coupon book for a "good" deal on the regular pizza we had every week. Then they shut the doors and basicly told me to go ### off when I called. This was a planned scam before bankruptcy, so much for the good honest businessman.
If we have a national sales tax, like socialist europe, then give us the benefits.
What that before Cain took over or after? If you long for Europe, than watch BBC News and check out the events in Greece.
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
The government GETS MORE REVENUE, EVEN AT A LOWER RATE !
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
The government GETS MORE REVENUE, EVEN AT A LOWER RATE !
And there ya go !
You really are a clueless dolt! Business is vibrant, expanding and booming. The unemployment rate goes down, people have money and are spending it! Supply side economics works every time its tried? What's not to like? Go back to your crack pipe!
Keeping stating those indefensible opinions as declarative facts. Somebody will eventually start to believe them. It works for Obama.
Do try to follow along and I'll explain again how Cain's plan increases the cost of labor.
Right now an employer pays 7.65% in payroll taxes on the wages they pay employees. Under Cain's plan, the 7.65% is eliminated, but so is the tax deduction for wages paid. As it is now, for every $1,000 in wages paid the employer pays $76.50 in payroll taxes. Under Cain's plan the tax on that same $1,000 wage is $90.00 for an increase of $13.5. That increase in labor cost makes American labor less competitive, so an employer looking to create a new job has even more reason to create that job overseas even if the overall income tax rate under Cain's plan is less than what they pay now.
Under current law subchapter S corporation (most small businesses) pay ZERO income tax on net profits, but Cain's plan eliminates this distinction and taxes all corporations at 9%. The owners of a small business pay the 9% corporate tax, plus the 9% individual tax, plus the 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 27%. Many small businesses owners have a lower effective tax rate under the current system because of deductions. If you buy the argument that raising taxes on job creators is bad for the economy, then Cain's 999 plan is bad for the economy.
I don't give a damn what he says. He wouldn't advocate a tax system that would bring in less money than what we have now before real, meanigful cuts in Gov. spending were a reality. Talk is cheap.
The government GETS MORE REVENUE, EVEN AT A LOWER RATE !
And there ya go !
You really are a clueless dolt! Business is vibrant, expanding and booming. The unemployment rate goes down, people have money and are spending it! Supply side economics works every time its tried? What's not to like? Go back to your crack pipe!
And yet you give the gov. more taxpayer dollars to waste and call me a "clueless dolt" ? What a [bleep]' asswhole !
Just need to post that again for posterity. MacLorry talking about the justification/need for the federal child tax credit.
I guess I'll have to put it in terms you can understand. Without the next generation of law abiding, well educated citizens there will be no one around to empty your bedpan.
All I know is once upon a time Godfathers sold me a coupon book for a "good" deal on the regular pizza we had every week. Then they shut the doors and basicly told me to go ### off when I called. This was a planned scam before bankruptcy, so much for the good honest businessman.
On the likely naive assumption that you really do actually blame the CEO of a quater of a billion dollar company for your coupon book not being honored by your local store 20 years ago...... you know Godfathers are franchises right?
And the employee has a paycheck 7.65%larger than before.And a 9% sales tax on what he buys with it.
It is stupidly dishonest to say he is better off on THAT score.Maybe he makes out on the 9% income tax , but if he gives up a couple of deductions for kids,he may be hammered on that also.
999 is an easy sell in theory,but it will go down in flames and take Mr.Cain with it,I'm thinking.It's just too easy to fault.
999 will take its' place in history alongside Ross Perot's flip charts.
Shoot. I was so hopeful but I think you lost focus again. Stay with it. What happens to the 'second' 7.65% of payroll expense that "the company pays". You said (or implied) they wouldn't give it to the employees right? So what happens to it....
You have more conversations going than you are geared up to handle,so I'll overlook your condescending remark.[but only this one time , you understand]
The employee doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the $$$ the company keeps.He is used to not being consulted about the company's money.Here is the point,so pay attention , THIS time:
Mr.50k employee/voter is being told he makes out OK under 999.So he looks at it like I just did and will come to the same conclusion that I did.If he has a working wife and no kids,maybe his 9% W.T. is less than he is paying now and coupled with his 7.65% "windfall",he accepts the 9% sales tax.
But if he is the sole wage earner and has lots of deductions under the present system , his paycheck shrinks and he has a new sales tax on top of it.
There will be no shortage of folks to do the math for them long before the first primary if they ain't inclined in that direction.
Just need to post that again for posterity. MacLorry talking about the justification/need for the federal child tax credit.
I guess I'll have to put it in terms you can understand. Without the next generation of law abiding, well educated citizens there will be no one around to empty your bedpan.
It's OK, you've been more than clear. It's the government's job to pay/subsidize 'families' to have children. Because without that (it probably goes without saying) we won't reproduce. Believe me, I got it the first time, believe me. I just want everyone else to share in that wisdom. I remember the relief we felt when our son was born. After years of trying for that tax write off we were ROLLING in the money and have been ever since. MacLorry, you've been found out sir. You are a hoot! You had me for a while though. Well done!
Shoot. I was so hopeful but I think you lost focus again. Stay with it. What happens to the 'second' 7.65% of payroll expense that "the company pays". You said (or implied) they wouldn't give it to the employees right? So what happens to it....
The employer keeps it or do you think Cain can enforce a government mandate that all employers must give all employees a 7.65% raise. If you do, then you should have no problem with the Obamacare individual mandate.
It's OK, you've been more than clear. It's the government's job to pay/subsidize 'families' to have children. Because without that (it probably goes without saying) we won't reproduce. Believe me, I got it the first time, believe me. I just want everyone else to share in that wisdom. I remember the relief we felt when our son was born. After years of trying for that tax write off we were ROLLING in the money and have been ever since. MacLorry, you've been found out sir. You are a hoot! You had me for a while though. Well done!
So you don't know the difference between the government's job and a government investment. Smart government invests in physical infrastructure and human capital, same as smart businesses do. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean anything more than you're dense in some places.
And the employee has a paycheck 7.65%larger than before.And a 9% sales tax on what he buys with it.
It is stupidly dishonest to say he is better off on THAT score.Maybe he makes out on the 9% income tax , but if he gives up a couple of deductions for kids,he may be hammered on that also.
999 is an easy sell in theory,but it will go down in flames and take Mr.Cain with it,I'm thinking.It's just too easy to fault.
999 will take its' place in history alongside Ross Perot's flip charts.
Shoot. I was so hopeful but I think you lost focus again. Stay with it. What happens to the 'second' 7.65% of payroll expense that "the company pays". You said (or implied) they wouldn't give it to the employees right? So what happens to it....
You have more conversations going than you are geared up to handle,so I'll overlook your condescending remark.[but only this one time , you understand]
The employee doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the $$$ the company keeps.He is used to not being consulted about the company's money.Here is the point,so pay attention , THIS time:
Mr.50k employee/voter is being told he makes out OK under 999.So he looks at it like I just did and will come to the same conclusion that I did.If he has a working wife and no kids,maybe his 9% W.T. is less than he is paying now and coupled with his 7.65% "windfall",he accepts the 9% sales tax.
But if he is the sole wage earner and has lots of deductions under the present system , his paycheck shrinks and he has a new sales tax on top of it.
There will be no shortage of folks to do the math for them long before the first primary if they ain't inclined in that direction.
Working guy/voter.Got it?
Curdog, You are quick to give a theoretical with ZERO backup and you again COMPLETELY miss my point. Let's pretend your 50k guy does in fact have so many deductions and exemptions and loss carryforwards and who all knows what, that he somehow got his affective rate below 18% and assume he spends every single dollar he has on taxable items (absurd I know but I'm trying to work with you here). WHAT HAPPENS TO THE COMPANY'S 'extra' money when all of his competitors have the same 'extra' money??? They want to be competitive remember? They want to offer the best price, built and provided by the best workers, at the best price? Here are the options. 1) They keep it in payroll costs where it has always been (aka it goes to the employee) 2) They lower the price of their goods or services (aka it goes to the consumer aka the employee)so they increase sales and grow and hire more people.... 3) They use it to expand to gain a competitive edge (aka they hire more employees). 4) The evil greedy company pockets it .... and their competitors do one of the above. Now which of the above is it or do you have another scenario?
It's OK, you've been more than clear. It's the government's job to pay/subsidize 'families' to have children. Because without that (it probably goes without saying) we won't reproduce. Believe me, I got it the first time, believe me. I just want everyone else to share in that wisdom. I remember the relief we felt when our son was born. After years of trying for that tax write off we were ROLLING in the money and have been ever since. MacLorry, you've been found out sir. You are a hoot! You had me for a while though. Well done!
So you don't know the difference between the government's job and a government investment. Smart government invests in physical infrastructure and human capital, same as smart businesses do. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean anything more than you're dense in some places.
Keep putting it out there MacLorry. It's good to know what walks amongst us and what we are up against every election cycle. It's the gubmints job to... I want to make sure I have your latest marketing correct... "invest in human capital" (aka promote child birth in families). You can't make this stuff up.
Shoot. I was so hopeful but I think you lost focus again. Stay with it. What happens to the 'second' 7.65% of payroll expense that "the company pays". You said (or implied) they wouldn't give it to the employees right? So what happens to it....
The employer keeps it or do you think Cain can enforce a government mandate that all employers must give all employees a 7.65% raise. If you do, then you should have no problem with the Obamacare individual mandate.
The company 'keeps' it. Got it. I'm now very curious. What is your career MacLorry?
djs, You are making a fatal mistake in your comment. The worker DOES pay all 15.3% of their employment taxes. The company factors that tax in with the salary they pay the employee. At the end of the day, you paycheck shows your 7.65% payment in writing, but the dirty little secret is that YOU PAID IT ALL! Get educated people!
And these companies are going to give all their employees a 7.65% raise just as soon as 999 is implemented?
Not necessarily. There would have to be a payroll shift if something this different is implemented. Of course if the employee didn't get their 7.65% increase, they could always resign. You know, to show the business how much they dislike them!
You don't get it.Wonder of wonders,your sidekick does.Of course the company will give the employee the 7.65% they have been withholding for the government.But that's ALL he gets to offset the 9% Sales tax,leaving him in the hole ON THAT SCORE.
I'm now very curious. What is your career MacLorry?
Debunking scams and dumping out the kool-aid. That takes time and some folks drink the kool-aid before I can dump it. It looks like you were first in line for Cain's batch.
I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.
I'm now very curious. What is your career MacLorry?
Debunking scams and dumping out the kool-aid. That takes time and some folks drink the kool-aid before I can dump it. It looks like you were first in line for Cain's batch.
That's what I figured, a government job. Good night.
Keeping stating those indefensible opinions as declarative facts. Somebody will eventually start to believe them. It works for Obama.
Do try to follow along and I'll explain again how Cain's plan increases the cost of labor.
Right now an employer pays 7.65% in payroll taxes on the wages they pay employees. Under Cain's plan, the 7.65% is eliminated, but so is the tax deduction for wages paid. As it is now, for every $1,000 in wages paid the employer pays $76.50 in payroll taxes. Under Cain's plan the tax on that same $1,000 wage is $90.00 for an increase of $13.5. That increase in labor cost makes American labor less competitive, so an employer looking to create a new job has even more reason to create that job overseas even if the overall income tax rate under Cain's plan is less than what they pay now.
Under current law subchapter S corporation (most small businesses) pay ZERO income tax on net profits, but Cain's plan eliminates this distinction and taxes all corporations at 9%. The owners of a small business pay the 9% corporate tax, plus the 9% individual tax, plus the 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 27%. Many small businesses owners have a lower effective tax rate under the current system because of deductions. If you buy the argument that raising taxes on job creators is bad for the economy, then Cain's 999 plan is bad for the economy.
Are you sure that the corporation would not be able to deduct the $1,000 paid in wages in arriving at a net taxable income? I have not seen details that say that it would be a 9% gross receipts tax. Under present accounting rules, even GROSS income can include a deduction for "cost of goods sold", which includes certain labor expense. NET income includes a deduction for even more compensation expenses. If it's a 9% tax on gross or net income and not gross receipts, your assumptions are incorrect.
Again, I'm not certain of the details, but I highly doubt whether S corporation owners will be double taxed under the 999 plan. If the S corporation income is taxed at 9%, then it could/would likley be distributed to the shareholders/owners as non-taxable dividend income.
It would make no sense to do so otherwise. Even under the current system, S corporation income is passed through as income to the shareholder so that it is not taxed at both the corporate and individual level.
I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.
Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?
I'm now very curious. What is your career MacLorry?
Debunking scams and dumping out the kool-aid. That takes time and some folks drink the kool-aid before I can dump it. It looks like you were first in line for Cain's batch.
That's what I figured, a government job. Good night.
Get your "theoretical" hat off.Stop looking at what's "best for the country".Cain IS 999.He made it that way.Look at the selling points he is using for 999.
Then look at them the way the 50k guy[THAT"S CAIN'S THEORETICAL GUY WHO HE SAYS WON'T BE HURT] is gonna look at it.That's what I did.
And I got news for you and your running mate,businesses expand when the demand for their product justifies it.Taxes enter into the equation ,of course, but more so in good times than in bad.Manufacturing companies, especially, have to be leery of letting the beancounters have too much input into their expansion decisions.That's why they make terrible C.E.O's in manufacturing companies.Seems they do OK with pizza parlors.
Having spent a good while in manufacturing , I already knew this.It was news to some guy interviewing Donald Trump the other day.[no google,sorry]
I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.
Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?
I took a quick look at Cain's website, and the 999 plan taxes "gross income" less some other costs. If that term is used by Cain in its technical sense, then the costs of direct labor would be deductible as part of "cost of goods sold". Gross income is not the same as gross receipts. This could blow a hole in your theory that it raises the cost of labor versus the current employers' payroll tax.
Here you can find definitions of "gross income" and "cost of goods sold":
I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.
Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?
For starters, you are making crap up. Where in the world are you getting this idea that employers will pay a 9% tax on wages paid. Incorrect, as I understand his suggestions. the number is zero.
The elimination of payroll taxes WILL end up in wages as all employers will have this tax eliminated....and we all know about markets and competition, or least some of us do.
Also, what in the earth is your hang up over the wealthy not having to pay cap gains? Several times you have resorted to your semicommi blabber fussing about the rich not paying the same percentage of their income due to living off of cap gains. You plainly cannot understand that cap gains is very much unlike income. Do you understand that if they inherited their wealth that it already had to pass through the most unethical of tax doors, the death tax...if they made it, it has already been taxed heavily via the heavily graduated income tax...if they won it it has already been taxed heavily? Are you just a big proponent of double taxation...or are you just so friggen envious and selfish that you cannot stomach the wealthier growing wealthier?
Are you sure that the corporation would not be able to deduct the $1,000 paid in wages in arriving at a net taxable income? I have not seen details that say that it would be a 9% gross receipts tax. Under present accounting rules, even GROSS income can include a deduction for "cost of goods sold", which includes certain labor expense. NET income includes a deduction for even more compensation expenses. If it's a 9% tax on gross or net income and not gross receipts, your assumptions are incorrect.
Again, I'm not certain of the details, but I highly doubt whether S corporation owners will be double taxed under the 999 plan. If the S corporation income is taxed at 9%, then it could/would likley be distributed to the shareholders/owners as non-taxable dividend income.
It would make no sense to do so otherwise. Even under the current system, S corporation income is passed through as income to the shareholder so that it is not taxed at both the corporate and individual level.
I'm impressed, finally someone who actually knows something about business accounting and taxes.
Obvioulsy, Cain's plan can't tax gross receipts, but I saw the statement that wages an employer pays are not deductable under Cain's plan. I believe it was in one of the articles the OP linked to.
Under present rules nearly every legitimate business expenditure is deductable or can be amortized. Things get gray when calculating the cost of goods sold based on FIFO or LIFO. Things really get into black magic when it comes to calculating the loss of good will or the cost of closing a plant, etcetera, etcetera. The point being that, no matter how simple the tax system is, business accounting is anything but simple and a good number of people at the IRS work in that area.
As for S corporation being eliminated, I heard that from Cain's mouth during an interview on Fox News. Just as with ordinary corporations now, under Cain's plan, S corporations pay 9% on net profits, passes what's left through to shareholders (owners) who then pay 9% individual taxes on those profits, and then pay another 9% when they spend their money.
Cain's website says the plan "eliminates double taxation of dividends". This leads me to believe that dividends would not be taxable to the individual, under the assumption that the tax was paid at the corporate level. If so, I do not believe shareholders would be taxed on both the corporate income and again when the income is paid out as dividends.
For starters, you are making crap up. Where in the world are you getting this idea that employers will pay a 9% tax on wages paid. Incorrect, as I understand his suggestions. the number is zero.
I'm not making anything up, I saw the statement that wages an employer pays are not deductable under Cain's plan. I believe it was in one of the articles the OP linked to. Also, wages are not one of the items listed as business deductions on Cain's own website.
Originally Posted by MSHuntfish
The elimination of payroll taxes WILL end up in wages as all employers will have this tax eliminated....and we all know about markets and competition, or least some of us do.
Now you are making crap up. There's no competition for workers or haven't you heard about the high unemployment.
Originally Posted by MSHuntfish
Also, what in the earth is your hang up over the wealthy not having to pay cap gains?
Why the class warfare on working people?
Originally Posted by MSHuntfish
Several times you have resorted to your semicommi blabber fussing about the rich not paying the same percentage of their income due to living off of cap gains.
Now you are making crap up again.
Originally Posted by MSHuntfish
You plainly cannot understand that cap gains is very much unlike income.
Not as different as you think. If a farmer spends $10,000 to plant, grow, and harvest a crop why is his gain taxes as ordinary income, but if he puts $10,000 in stocks and sells them a year later the profit is treated as a capital gain? The $10,000 he spends either way was money he already paid taxes on, and either way he could lose his money, and either way wealth can be created or lost. So explain why you think one type of income should be taxed differently than another type of income.
Originally Posted by MSHuntfish
Do you understand that if they inherited their wealth that it already had to pass through the most unethical of tax doors, the death tax...if they made it, it has already been taxed heavily via the heavily graduated income tax...if they won it it has already been taxed heavily? Are you just a big proponent of double taxation...or are you just so friggen envious and selfish that you cannot stomach the wealthier growing wealthier?
So why do you support Cain's 9% tax on existing savings that has already been taxed? Are you just a big proponent of double taxation...or are you just so friggen envious and selfish of people who have savings that you cannot stomach it?
After having been a W2 wage earner, part of a partnership, owner in both C Corp and S Corp companies, and a sole proprietor, almost anything would be an improvement on our current tax codes!! Wait and hear the man out! There is some merit there! Not to mention the fact that the IRS needs to be cut back greatly!
Cain's website says the plan "eliminates double taxation of dividends". This leads me to believe that dividends would not be taxable to the individual, under the assumption that the tax was paid at the corporate level. If so, I do not believe shareholders would be taxed on both the corporate income and again when the income is paid out as dividends.
So a corporation that paid all its profits back the shareholders wouldn't pay any taxes at all. If such a corporation had capital gains, would the shareholders pay the 9% individual tax on that money or would it be treated differently being Cain says there would be no taxes on capital gains. Cain is going to have to publish more detail before his plan can be fully scored in detail.
After having been a W2 wage earner, part of a partnership, owner in both C Corp and S Corp companies, and a sole proprietor, almost anything would be an improvement on our current tax codes!! Wait and hear the man out! There is some merit there! Not to mention the fact that the IRS needs to be cut back greatly!
If Cain's economic plan is 999 then he owes the public a detailed description of that plan so it can be scored. No one is going to give him a free pass during the primary only find out it's a fatally flawed plan when it's Cain vs. Obama. The stakes are just too high.
I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.
Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?
I took a quick look at Cain's website, and the 999 plan taxes "gross income" less some other costs. If that term is used by Cain in its technical sense, then the costs of direct labor would be deductible as part of "cost of goods sold". Gross income is not the same as gross receipts. This could blow a hole in your theory that it raises the cost of labor versus the current employers' payroll tax.
Here you can find definitions of "gross income" and "cost of goods sold":
Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official who now calls himself an independent, also offered a critical examination this week on the New York Times Economix blog. He (as did Kleinbard) noted that the business tax allows for no deduction for wages, which he said "is likely to raise the cost of employing workers, even with abolition of the employers' share of the payroll tax."
Business Flat Tax � 9% Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders
That's the list of "less some other costs" unless there's different information on different parts of Cain's website and wages are not included in that list nor are taxes paid to state and local govenments, nor interest on loans.
Nathan Lewis: Already Herman Cain is moving somewhat in this direction with his �999 Plan,� which he says is a combination of both �flat tax� and �fair tax� ideas. I think it is still a rather rough proposal, but it is enough to start a discussion. Voters realize that, by the time it went through Congress, some of the more problematic elements would be tweaked and fixed. The important thing is that he would be getting the process started.
Maybe that�s why the pizza guy is rising in the polls?
Cain has a long long way to go before any of this becomes viable. Furthermore, the 999 plan would be morphed into something else - its just the nature of politics. In all likelihood, Pres. Cain would not see ANY of it get any traction. So there is no use to get all lathered up. However, there are some idiotic statements being made here by people who have no clue or are being misled by their worldly exposures.
The bottom line to all this is that Obama has to go and the Dems need to lose control of the Senate. Any Republican candidate is 1000 times better than our little Warlord.
In the last election the liberal media sold John S McCain to the public as the neatest thing since a presliced loaf of bread, that's because he was liberal and true conservatives wouldn't vote for him. AFTER they made sure he had secured the nomination against the likes of Romney, they dumped him like a used condom. They then promoted Obama as the greatest canidate ever, dumping their assoc with Hilliary because they could not even begin to control her.Now the Liberal media has started again the process of directing the selection Herman Cain as the republican nominee, watch the media, watch what they are doing and saying. Its clear to me that the liberal MEDIA thinks it should pick the canidates who will run for their parties and who will win and who will lose.Why do they keep promoting blacks to be president who are no more or less qualified for the office than anyone else?Polls and pollsters can be directed to deliver whatever results are ordered by those footing the BILL for them. Herman Cain or whoever needs to be run thru the microscope just like all the canidates the media doesn't like( Newt ,Palin, etc).When the libdicktards of the media start saying nice things about canidates we all need to look at our hole cards. Way I see it Magnum Man
Wait, wait! I've just decided that I SUPPORT the 9-9-9- tax plan, based on a report that I'll pay a lot less under this plan than under the current tax structure.
Headline "Herman Cain�s 9-9-9 Tax Plan: Winners and Losers"
"As GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain touts his catchy 9-9-9 tax plan, one image comes to mind: an ad for a delicious-looking pizza that is nothing more than an empty promise. Sure, that image is mouth-watering, but when you open the box and take one bite, you�re sorely disappointed.
"This is an apt metaphor for the former CEO of Godfather�s Pizza, who is the flavor of the week in the GOP beauty contest. The plan is as simple as it sounds: blow up the current tax code and replace it with a 9 percent personal flat tax, a 9 percent corporate flat tax and a 9 percent national sales tax. Get it? 9-9-9! You can almost hear Ron Popeil voicing the ad �it slices, it dices, it�s Herman Cain�s 9-9-9 plan!�
"But like with many slick ads, the product doesn�t live up to the hype.
"The first problem is the plan is short on details, so economists are having a tough time crunching the numbers. That said, we can identify some losers out of the gate � the nearly 40 percent of Americans who do not pay income tax, would now pay 9 percent. Cain has said that there would his plan would protect those living below the poverty line, but he didn�t say how that would happen.
"How about the average worker? Cain has said these folks would make out, because �You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent,� he said. �That goes to 9 percent. That�s a 6 percentage point difference.� Except it isn�t, because workers only pay one-half of the payroll tax, or 7.65 percent. So 9 percent flat income tax rate would increase taxes by 1.35 percentage points, or more than 17 percent.
"Winners under Cain�s plan include higher earning taxpayers, who would see a great benefit under the 9-9-9 plan. The reason is that many of the wealthiest Americans pay the lion�s share of their taxes on income from investments and capital gains. Under Cain�s plan, those two taxes disappear. Small business owners would also score, because they could pay themselves with dividends (which would no longer be taxed) instead of wages."
Hell, let the poor pay for 2 unfunded wars and more of my share! I want mine!!!
I just posted an article from that liberal, soclailist "The Wall Street Journal MoneyWatch" site. I suppose that your consider the WSJ to be liberal and socialist (anyone that you differ with in your greater intellect is a ether a shill, liberal or socialist).
I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.
Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?
I took a quick look at Cain's website, and the 999 plan taxes "gross income" less some other costs. If that term is used by Cain in its technical sense, then the costs of direct labor would be deductible as part of "cost of goods sold". Gross income is not the same as gross receipts. This could blow a hole in your theory that it raises the cost of labor versus the current employers' payroll tax.
Here you can find definitions of "gross income" and "cost of goods sold":
Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official who now calls himself an independent, also offered a critical examination this week on the New York Times Economix blog. He (as did Kleinbard) noted that the business tax allows for no deduction for wages, which he said "is likely to raise the cost of employing workers, even with abolition of the employers' share of the payroll tax."
Business Flat Tax � 9% Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders
That's the list of "less some other costs" unless there's different information on different parts of Cain's website and wages are not included in that list nor are taxes paid to state and local govenments, nor interest on loans.
Cain's plan says that tax is applied against "gross income". Gross Income is calculated as gross receipts minus "cost of goods sold". COGS includes direct labor costs. Therefore, depending upon how loosely they are using the term "gross income", it may include a deduction for direct labor costs if they are using the technical term of "gross income".
...Cain's plan says that tax is applied against "gross income". Gross Income is calculated as gross receipts minus "cost of goods sold". COGS includes direct labor costs....
This is correct. wiki:
"Gross income in United States tax law is receipts and gains from all sources less cost of goods sold."
October 15, 2011 Cain the Tax-Code Killer By Larry Kudlow Herman Cain is the only GOP presidential candidate who wants to kill the tax code. That's right. Put a knife in it. Junk the entire system. And people are cheering as he rises in the polls in his quest for the nomination.
Cain's 9-9-9 plan is not perfect.
But then again, the good should never be the enemy of the perfect.
Rep. Paul Ryan gives the plan a thumbs-up. Supply-side mentor Art Laffer tells me it would be "far, far better than the current system." And Chris Chocola, president of the free-market Club for Growth, calls it "a truly revolutionary tax reform that would amount to a massive job-creating tax cut on investments, savings and income." [�] For his part, Cain argues that the sales tax nine would pick up revenue and help to lower the rate for everybody, especially the middle class. His economic adviser Rich Lowrie told me in a CNBC interview that the sales tax is a replacement tax, not an add-on tax like you'd find at the state level. This is a key point. Lowrie said, "All we are doing is pulling out taxes that are invisible. We're cutting the rates. We're putting them back in at lower rates." Lowrie is referring to the payroll tax, which in the Cain plan will go from 15 to 9 percent. That constitutes a net tax cut and a good deal more transparency regarding costs and prices that are embedded in the current code. [...]
Liberals oppose the sales tax because they say its regressivity will hurt middle- and low-income people. But the Cain plan partially deals with this by exempting everybody below the poverty line. Cain also states that sales of existing goods would be exempt. [...]
Nevertheless, a mammoth drop in marginal tax rates for individuals (35 to 9 percent, or 18 percent including the sales tax) and for businesses (also 35 to 9 percent) would supply an incredibly strong economy-wide growth incentive. Lowrie argued further that the 9-9-9 plan will add $2 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product, create 6 million jobs, increase business investment by a third and lift wages by 10 percent. "And if you fold all that growth together," said Lowrie, "federal revenues go up by 15 percent."
Cain's plan says that tax is applied against "gross income". Gross Income is calculated as gross receipts minus "cost of goods sold". COGS includes direct labor costs. Therefore, depending upon how loosely they are using the term "gross income", it may include a deduction for direct labor costs if they are using the technical term of "gross income".
Good luck. I've basically given up correcting the same falsehoods over and over again. There are so many self professed accounting professionals spouting off so much blatantly WRONG information either because they are misinformed or ill intentioned, I just gave up. I'd have greater success explaining it to my 3rd grade son. Not because he's smarter (although he did just get his first report card - straight A's! ) but because he doesn't have an agenda. I've spent my entire career in finance and accounting and while 999 has an item or two that can give rise to reaonsable requests for clarity, these broad based dismissals based on flat out fabrications simply show how either scared people are of actual change or more likely how selfish they are in their desire to continue a system which has worked perfectly to convince them that THEY are getting the better end of the deal and somebody else (generally the evil rich) are getting it stuck to them. If for no other reason than that, our current tax code is truly brilliant and will likely prevail. In the meantime, as I've said previously, I'll vote to correct course now while the impending impact with the glacier can be reduced to a glancing blow instead of the direct hit and sinking that is 100% guaranteed and looming if we stay the course.
This is an arguement about something that doesn't exist.
If Cain were elected and he did have his staff draft a bill and send it to congress it would be DOA. Bills from the administration are easy targets for congressmen from your own party, let alone the opposition. Its why Obama care is really Pelosi/Reid care.
What that means if such a bill were introduced it would be drafted primarily by the majority parties in congress and will no doubt be many hundred or thousand pages long. Exactly what types of income or products/services would taxable would be TBD. All Cain has done is throw out a rough idea.
This is an arguement about something that doesn't exist.
If Cain were elected and he did have his staff draft a bill and send it to congress it would be DOA. Bills from the administration are easy targets for congressmen from your own party, let alone the opposition. Its why Obama care is really Pelosi/Reid care.
What that means if such a bill were introduced it would be drafted primarily by the majority parties in congress and will no doubt be many hundred or thousand pages long. Exactly what types of income or products/services would taxable would be TBD. All Cain has done is throw out a rough idea.
that's all true, as it related to "business as usual" in the current congressional situation. but the idea is that with Cain it might not be business as usual.
he's not a career politician. i don't know of any other political office he's held. and therein lies a lot of the excitement. he seems to have no other masters, besides trying to do what he thinks is right for the country. if they send him a tax reform bill that's not to his liking, maybe he'll tear it up and tell him to go back to the drawing board. maybe not, but at least the perception that he will not be "more of the same" is there.
maybe people disagree with him on what's right, but so far he seems like a huge breath of fresh air to me.
Lowrie is referring to the payroll tax, which in the Cain plan will go from 15 to 9 percent. That constitutes a net tax cut and a good deal more transparency regarding costs and prices that are embedded in the current code.
Retired folks don't pay the payroll tax, so their taxes go from 0 to 9%, which is a huge increase for them. The sales tax also taxes existing savings on which the income tax has already been paid. That's like the government confiscating 9% of your savings and so-called conservatives seem ok with that.
Originally Posted by Bowsinger
Liberals oppose the sales tax because they say its regressivity will hurt middle- and low-income people. But the Cain plan partially deals with this by exempting everybody below the poverty line.
So every time some poor person buys something they have to show some government issued ID that identifies them as poor, is that it? What bureaucrat is going to be in charge of issued poor stamps? If a person is on the edge of qualifying and gets a 3% raise that puts them over the limit, they then pay the 9% tax. Seems like another dumb idea.
Originally Posted by Bowsinger
Nevertheless, a mammoth drop in marginal tax rates for individuals (35 to 9 percent, or 18 percent including the sales tax) and for businesses (also 35 to 9 percent) would supply an incredibly strong economy-wide growth incentive.
Few business pay at the tax table rates due to the many deductions in the current code. Under Cain's plan many of these deductions go away, which will actually increase the amount of tax paid. For example, people working at home can take a deduction for space they use exclusively for running their business. Nothing like that in Cain's plan. Landlords can deduct the depreciation of their rental property, but nothing like that in Cain's plan, so rents will have to go up to compensate.
One reason the tax code is so complicated is because businesses are diverse and complicated. Cain's simpleton tax plan would increase taxes on many business and disrupt many more. The results would be devastating to the economy.
Yep, retired people and poor people bare no responsibility for getting this country straightened out. Neither do black people, immigrants, or children. Nor businesses.
A sudden and huge change to an unproven idea has seldom been considered a "conservative" idea. Guess the political landscape is round like the earth and if you go far enough to the right you end up being on the left. Retired people have already met their responsibilities, and nationalizing 9% of their savings is unjust, but something true communists are ok with.
Under Cain's 999 plan here's one way to avoid paying any federal taxes on income.
A self-employed individual with a hearty income from a retail business buys a new home as rental property from a builder. Because the individual is buying the home for his business and because he's buying the home form a business there's no sales tax on the home. Also, because it's a purchase he can deduct the entire cost of the home form the retail business income he would normally pays 9% on. A year later he sells the house and even though the entire sale price is income (because he took a 100% deduction for the purchase price in the prior year), it's now a capital gain, which is tax free. Thus, the individual converted taxable income from his retail business into capital gains and avoided the 9% individual tax, and because he's not a corporation, he also avoids the 9% corporate tax. He can then buy and existing home, and because it's used property, he avoids the 9% sales tax. He ends up with a home he got with income he paid 0-0-0 tax on under Cain's 999 simpleton plan.
A simple tax plan makes it simple to avoid paying taxes. The government has to have revenues, so they either have to increase rates, or they have to add rules that make it harder to avoid paying taxes. Given the inventiveness of people wanting to avoid paying taxes is the main reason why the current code is so complicated. Part of that inventiveness is lobbying congress to add specific loopholes to the tax code, the other part is finding loopholes as I just demonstrated.
Part of Cain's Shtick is saying people would keep Congress from raising the rates, because the plan is so simple. You only need to check how state sales tax rates have increased over the years to know it's a phony claim. Welcome to 15-15-15 and lots of rules to close loopholes like I just described.
Retired people have no less responsibilty to get under the load than anyone else. Your age doesn't exempt you from taxes.
Cain was just on Huckabee. Under 999, social security taxes have already been paid by the retiree during their working years. SS would not be taxed under the plan.
As they shouldn't be....But a certain retiree that has been active in this thread is acting like everyone over 62 should not be expected to participate in this problem solving process, including having to participate in a 9% sales tax. He's acting like he should be served by the young and the successful, after all...he is retired from the IRS.
Originally Posted by Plinker
Originally Posted by MShuntfish
Retired people have no less responsibilty to get under the load than anyone else. Your age doesn't exempt you from taxes.
Cain was just on Huckabee. Under 999, social security taxes have already been paid by the retiree during their working years. SS would not be taxed under the plan.
at a staggering $14,928 a year and $8400 deduction for mortgage interest I ain't likely to have a huge tax bill this year as it is.
If Cane still had 9% sales tax I would be happy to pay my share. Bring it on and lets get spending under control. If we do nothing we will be buried in debt beyond rescue.
I haven't taken the time to read through 10 pages but I'd love to only have to pay 9% on what I earn. It's better than the current 30%+.
I doubt it will ever happen or that Cain will even win the nomination but it sounds good if nothing else, I haven't taken the time to study his plan in detail.
I think this country would have plenty of money if everyone paid their 10% and nothing more or less. The Lord doesn't require more than 10% why does the gov't?
I haven't taken the time to read through 10 pages but I'd love to only have to pay 9% on what I earn. It's better than the current 30%+.
I doubt it will ever happen or that Cain will even win the nomination but it sounds good if nothing else, I haven't taken the time to study his plan in detail.
I think this country would have plenty of money if everyone paid their 10% and nothing more or less. The Lord doesn't require more than 10% why does the gov't?
Either you are not very good at math or you DO NOT plan on spending a dime of your income.
Getting taxed ANOTHER 9% on everything you buy sort of blows a hole in your 10% theory....
Just a quick opinion. I'm in favor of something different. Across the board is OK with me. But to make provision for poverty level folks is a no go. I'm sorry but there are to many 'poverty' level folks who eat out at McDonald's several times/week, have the entire top of the line cable package, full service cell phone with 4g phone, etc.....IMOP the new plan should not exempt someone classified as poverty level.
I'm sorry but there are to many 'poverty' level folks who eat out at McDonald's several times/week, have the entire top of the line cable package, full service cell phone with 4g phone, etc...
I'd like to know where you got that information and if true, just how the hell they do it. I can't afford any of those luxuries and last I knew I make well over poverty level wages.
Retired people have no less responsibilty to get under the load than anyone else. Your age doesn't exempt you from taxes.
Cain was just on Huckabee. Under 999, social security taxes have already been paid by the retiree during their working years. SS would not be taxed under the plan.
As I understand it, I think the issue is they'll have to pay 9% federal sales tax when they spend that SS check. That will be a $800 - $1800 tax increase per year for folks on fixed incomes.
The best predictor of someone being wealthy is their parents being wealthy. That pattern persists for four to six generations. This is true even with the current inheritance tax on estates of more than 5 million dollars.
Historically, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few leads to the oppression of the many, which has been the justification for the inheritance tax.
In the past it was conservatives who used hard learned lessons of the past to govern the future, but many conservatives have lost their way even to the point of supporting huge and unproven structural changes to the tax code. Such political recklessness has been the hallmark of liberals. "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." -- James Whitcomb Riley Cain is no conservative in the traditional sense of that word, and thus, he�s another RINO.
The problem is that the tax environments of the late 19th and very early 20th centuries did not concentrate wealth in the hands of few. It was a time of great prosperity for many. Other than that, I like what you say...oh ....wait....I just discounted a lot of what you said. My bad.
Originally Posted by Gath_Sten
The best predictor of someone being wealthy is their parents being wealthy. That pattern persists for four to six generations. This is true even with the current inheritance tax on estates of more than 5 million dollars.
Historically, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few leads to the oppression of the many, which has been the justification for the inheritance tax.
In the past it was conservatives who used hard learned lessons of the past to govern the future, but many conservatives have lost their way even to the point of supporting huge and unproven structural changes to the tax code. Such political recklessness has been the hallmark of liberals. "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." -- James Whitcomb Riley Cain is no conservative in the traditional sense of that word, and thus, he�s another RINO.
Originally Posted By: ewilliams I'm sorry but there are to many 'poverty' level folks who eat out at McDonald's several times/week, have the entire top of the line cable package, full service cell phone with 4g phone, etc...
I'd like to know where you got that information and if true, just how the hell they do it. I can't afford any of those luxuries and last I knew I make well over poverty level wages.
Info: When you work in public service you see alot of things that other folks do not. Try figuring out how someone who is indigent gets free dental, medical etc...while carrying more than one cell phone and ordering out several times a week.
Cain was just on Huckabee. Under 999, social security taxes have already been paid by the retiree during their working years. SS would not be taxed under the plan.
OK, so no 9% income tax on SS, but there's still a 9% sales tax on that money. Same for savings, which the income tax has also been paid on, and then there's the Roth IRA, U.S. saving bonds, and tax free municipal bonds.
Maybe Cain's plan is to require retired and poor people wear a six pointed star on their clothing to exempt them from the sales tax.
Along similar lines, no one makes a lot of money apart from the work and sacrifice of others. Case in point is Steve Jobs. It's apparent that much of his success is built on the work of Dennis Ritchie. Even the graphical user interface and mouse were ideas or confirmation of ideas Jobs got from his visit to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in the late 1970s. Would Jobs have made billions if not for the invention of the microprocessor by Intel, the ideas developed by Xerox at Palo Alto, or the work of Dennis Ritchie? Probably not. The progressive income tax system, called for by Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, is how society recoups its investments in human capital, infrastructure and the political system from those who prosper most from those investments.
If we are going to implement a flat income tax system then we should also implement an "after the fact" patent system that allows people like Dennis Ritchie to collect royalties from those who subsequently benefit from their work.
I see Mac the Great is still expounding on his socialist soapbox. He sounds like Elizabeth Warren more and more. You know, the socialist professor running against Scott Brown. Her most memorable quote to date is: "There is nobody who got rich in this Country on his own..." She worships at the shrine of the collective.
As for Jobs, if he had infringement issues, where were the lawsuits?
Mac the Great has a good connection from his "occupy polar orbit" protest site.
Actually those of us who have gray hair had a fair hand in causing the problem. Not so much the young ones who are getting the bill.
Actually, you are the first one I've seen bring that important fact up. My parents are in their mid- 60's and still work, and are successful, and have paid into the system for decades. That being said, when I hear some of that generation talk about everything that is owed to them, I cringe. They are the ones who elected the idiots that made all of these terrible decisions on health care, immigration, etc. Turns out it was a bad investment (electing them) and therefore may not result in a good return.
Gary Robbins is credited with scoring Cain 9-9-9 plan - and is referenced on Cain's website.
He is quoted as saying while he believe the plan is revenue neutral, it is not a plan he would have selected, nor does he believe America will accept it. He also said its more of a theory than a solution.
Cain , as I suspected, has already started making amendments to his flat tax by saying sale of existing homes and used cars will be tax exempt, allowing charitable deductions and a break for companies buying U.S. made goods. When asked what constituted a U.S. made good (actually when given an example) Cain's response was "I have no idea"
not exactly the confidence instilling actions of radical tax reform I think is necessary.
Along similar lines, no one makes a lot of money apart from the work and sacrifice of others. Case in point is Steve Jobs. It's apparent that much of his success is built on the work of Dennis Ritchie. Even the graphical user interface and mouse were ideas or confirmation of ideas Jobs got from his visit to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in the late 1970s. Would Jobs have made billions if not for the invention of the microprocessor by Intel, the ideas developed by Xerox at Palo Alto, or the work of Dennis Ritchie? Probably not. The progressive income tax system, called for by Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, is how society recoups its investments in human capital, infrastructure and the political system from those who prosper most from those investments.
If we are going to implement a flat income tax system then we should also implement an "after the fact" patent system that allows people like Dennis Ritchie to collect royalties from those who subsequently benefit from their work.
You are light years away from free-market capitalism. You have no concept of risk and reward. Nothin' like gob'ment workers....
Cain was just on Huckabee. Under 999, social security taxes have already been paid by the retiree during their working years. SS would not be taxed under the plan.
OK, so no 9% income tax on SS, but there's still a 9% sales tax on that money. Same for savings, which the income tax has also been paid on, and then there's the Roth IRA, U.S. saving bonds, and tax free municipal bonds.
Maybe Cain's plan is to require retired and poor people wear a six pointed star on their clothing to exempt them from the sales tax.
The morning's sunrise would have been less predictable than that post. Mac, if 999 had a 100% tax exemption for MacLorry, I'm guessing then you'd quietly vote for it, but publicly still chant your socialist "it takes a village to raise a millionaire" mantra.
Just a quick opinion. I'm in favor of something different. Across the board is OK with me. But to make provision for poverty level folks is a no go. I'm sorry but there are to many 'poverty' level folks who eat out at McDonald's several times/week, have the entire top of the line cable package, full service cell phone with 4g phone, etc.....IMOP the new plan should not exempt someone classified as poverty level.
Let's look at it. I live on SS alone. I make 1244 a month. I after mortgage, two standard cell phones and car insurance I have a whopping $144 a month left. I do NOT eat out anywhere let alone fast food, I have a five year old cell phone NOT a g anything, I have no consumer debt. We live with just enough solar and wind power to run a laptop and charge two cell phones. No indoor plumbing, no TV, no fancy anything. We heat and cook with wood we cut ourselves. We eat little we do not grow ourselves. So go ahead and take my $144 a month. What else you want to do to be, after all I am just another of your poor trash.
Info: When you work in public service you see alot of things that other folks do not. Try figuring out how someone who is indigent gets free dental, medical etc...while carrying more than one cell phone and ordering out several times a week.
You wont see us in the freebie line. Never have, never will. You accusations are an insult.
Cains plan is going to be a hit in the wallet to those who can least afford it - driven by the idea that many conservative voters seem to be latching onto that someone making 20K or 30K a year aren't paying their fair share because of a progressive tax system we currently have in place.
The government made the decision to spend $45K per person on our behalf, not them.
And somehow that has morphed into the idea that everyone needs to pay it back with a radical tax plan , in this case by Cain.
Frankly I'm a bit stunned that so many conservatives want to rally behind a plan that has very little detail, has not been vetted as to its impact and creates a new revenue stream for a government that can't be trusted with the ones it has now.
I'm not sure what happened to the GOP but if this is the line of thinking it has now - tax increases for everyone and new revenue for the government - I'm thinking they may be closer to liberals than they were in supporting McCain.
-------------------------------------------- TAXES: Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg. REGULATION: Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order. ENTITLEMENTS: Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently on the programs
I'll put you down in a "I don't have to pay any taxes at current and any plan that causes me to have to contribute at any level whatsoever is bad and I would prefer Obama win than pay taxes" camp.
But to your point, I will accept a new revenue stream that greatly broadens the tax base and causes nearly all to have skin in this mess if that new revenue stream replaces numerous other streams that stem from ideaology typical of socialists. (Think death, graduated income, and cap gains).
I contend that supporting Herman Cain's plan is great re-election plan for Obama
because for those people that don't live in a GOP vacuum realize that the 47% of people that don't currently pay taxes are not going to line up to vote for a guy trying to put a 9% tax on them.
They'll happily pull the lever for Obama and all these Cain tax is the answer people will be looking at each saying "wha happened?"
and you don't know jack schit about what I pay in taxes now.
You can trust the government with a new revenue stream. Me? I've paid attention to what the government has done with the current revenue stream it has had in the last decade.
Everyone having "skin" in the game just means its Xmas time in April for the pork barrel spenders in Washington D.C.`
This is not the brain child of Cain but the demon Seed of the Koch Brothers. I am really afraid that Cain is bought and paid for and some of us have bought into the idea that he is new and refreshing. I think not!
Quote
But Cain�s economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity.
Cain will have to make lots of changes to his tax plan because he has not thought this out very well. How will any business be able to afford any reinvestment when you cant write most of it off as the cost of doing business?
I see Mac the Great is still expounding on his socialist soapbox. He sounds like Elizabeth Warren more and more. You know, the socialist professor running against Scott Brown. Her most memorable quote to date is: "There is nobody who got rich in this Country on his own..." She worships at the shrine of the collective.
As for Jobs, if he had infringement issues, where were the lawsuits?
Mac the Great has a good connection from his "occupy polar orbit" protest site.
Of course if you knew anything beyond 8th grade you would realize neither Elizabeth Warren nor I came up with a new argument for the progressive income tax. It's an argument that goes back more than 100 years to a time when wealth was highly concentrated and working people were little more than Chinese coolies. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You are light years away from free-market capitalism. You have no concept of risk and reward. Nothin' like gob'ment workers....
And you have no common sense if you think anyone makes money in a vacuum apart from the contributions and sacrifice of many others. The kid standing on the shoulders of another kid shouldn't be given all the rewards for being the one who actually picked the apples.
Originally Posted by MacLorry
Not as different as you think. If a farmer spends $10,000 to plant, grow, and harvest a crop why is his gain taxes as ordinary income, but if he puts $10,000 in stocks and sells them a year later the profit is treated as a capital gain? The $10,000 he spends either way was money he already paid taxes on, and either way he could lose his money, and either way wealth can be created or lost. So explain why you think one type of income should be taxed differently than another type of income.
I see you never responded to my challenge to explain the difference. Here's your opportunity to show you're smart rather than just another smart mouth only capable of one liners.
Cains plan is going to be a hit in the wallet to those who can least afford it - driven by the idea that many conservative voters seem to be latching onto that someone making 20K or 30K a year aren't paying their fair share because of a progressive tax system we currently have in place.
The government made the decision to spend $45K per person on our behalf, not them.
And somehow that has morphed into the idea that everyone needs to pay it back with a radical tax plan , in this case by Cain.
Frankly I'm a bit stunned that so many conservatives want to rally behind a plan that has very little detail, has not been vetted as to its impact and creates a new revenue stream for a government that can't be trusted with the ones it has now.
I'm not sure what happened to the GOP but if this is the line of thinking it has now - tax increases for everyone and new revenue for the government - I'm thinking they may be closer to liberals than they were in supporting McCain.
I'm not so sure those defending Cain's 999 plan are conservatives as there are lots of libertarians and closet liberals on 24hr.
As I demonstrated in a post on Sunday it would be easy for the wealthy to avoid all income taxes by converting ordinary income into capital gains under Cain�s 999 plan. At the other end of the economic spectrum retired folks would see a 9% tax increase compared to the current system.
Because of the loopholes in Cain's simpleton 999 plan, tax revenues would drop dramatically and increase the deficit and debt requiring either an increase in the tax rates, or rules and regulations to close the loopholes. In the end Cain's plan will be neither simple or have low rates. Cain-sian economics simply doesn't work.
Making such a radical and unproven structural change to such a foundational function of the government is something liberals are known for. Nationalizing 9% of private savings is something communists are known for. Cain is no conservative in the traditional meaning of that word. He's best described as a radical rightist willing to recklessly take the nation in directions obviously beyond his knowledge or understanding. Regardless of the tax issue, I wouldn't trust such a person to be in charge of foreign policy and commander in chief.
I see Mac the Great is still expounding on his socialist soapbox. He sounds like Elizabeth Warren more and more. You know, the socialist professor running against Scott Brown. Her most memorable quote to date is: "There is nobody who got rich in this Country on his own..." She worships at the shrine of the collective.
As for Jobs, if he had infringement issues, where were the lawsuits?
Mac the Great has a good connection from his "occupy polar orbit" protest site.
Of course if you knew anything beyond 8th grade you would realize neither Elizabeth Warren nor I came up with a new argument for the progressive income tax. It's an argument that goes back more than 100 years to a time when wealth was highly concentrated and working people were little more than Chinese coolies. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I never said it was a new argument. You are changing the focus of the debate. Socialists like you strive for the collective that brings the equal distribution of poverty to the masses. You are a statist embarrassment who will soon become a fossil after the November elections. The American people have scene enough of this socialist experiment that Obama and his ilk have dabbled in. They have lived the folly of their past decisions and will choose not to repeat it.
Now go back to the Move On site were you will be appreciated like the "useful idiot" you are!
....the corn seed is consumed (planted)... ....the corn the farmer planted is not the seed he will sell.. ....using traditional accounting principles, your example doesn't clear the one-year hurdle....
The only way that your hypothetical corn seed could be construed as a capital asset would be a farmer buying seed corn, holding it over a period of one year, and selling that same seed into an appreciated market and thus realizing a gain.
And if the farmer did that...he should NOT have to pay taxes.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You mean like each and every time throughout history socialistic societies fail or the historical fact that capitalism has created the biggest thriving middle class mankind has ever known?
Hard to imagine why you aren't taken seriously. Gee, it's almost like sense every 'point' you've attempted to make has been refuted you're left to belitting those with an opposing view.
Mac the Marxist is simply trying to spread his propaganda on the wrong site. I find that socialists like him suffer from the usual maladies such as: a)embarrassed over their personal wealth, b)a graduate from a liberal college breeding ground of socialism, c)a resurgence of "latent hippy syndrome" d)a combination of all the above.
He and some others on here would be better off if they stayed on the Move On and Daily Kos sites. They would find more kindred spirits over there.
I am not 100% sure of this but I am going to bet that as Cain gets vetted we will see that he is not as desirable as he appears right now. His tax plan sounds great because most of us would like to see some kind of improvement in the current system. As more questions are asked we are finding that Cain has very few answers and really is very uninformed on this issue. This 999 plan is looking more and more like a talking point with very little chance of becoming law and that is a good thing.
We need to be clear about how shifting most of the tax burden to the middle class and lower middle class will affect most of us and benefit the top 1%-Koch Brothers. It appears that this is more of a gimmick and less of a fix unless your name is Koch. Anyone who thinks the upper 1% needs more tax protection is nuts because the bottom line is if you consume anything this tax plan will punish you in huge ways.
I own a hunting and fishing outfitting service in Alaska. I buy new Rafts, tents and gear almost every year. If I cannot write off these expenses as investments into my business I will stop buying new rafts at $4,500 a pop and start buying used rafts at $2,000 a pop so I can avoid the tax. Adding 9% to my costs will have to translate to my hunters making an already expensive hunt that much more costly.
When we start taxing new items, especially ones that are not made in the USA we are forcing businessmen to buy used and this will force lots of suppliers out of business, lots of you out of a job and of course lots of people will choose not to come to Alaska to go on hunting and fishing trips, hurting me. This is a nasty circle!
I really don't think this is what we want guys! We need to look long and hard at Cain and when he answers questions about his Tax plan with "I have no idea" we need to be very skeptical.
Not really. I can be a gun owner, fiscally conservative and choose not to vote for a RINO like McCain and choose to be sick when Palin is even mentioned!
The 2008 GOP offering was a waste of time and you know it!
Cains plan is going to be a hit in the wallet to those who can least afford it - driven by the idea that many conservative voters seem to be latching onto that someone making 20K or 30K a year aren't paying their fair share because of a progressive tax system we currently have in place.
The government made the decision to spend $45K per person on our behalf, not them.
And somehow that has morphed into the idea that everyone needs to pay it back with a radical tax plan , in this case by Cain.
Frankly I'm a bit stunned that so many conservatives want to rally behind a plan that has very little detail, has not been vetted as to its impact and creates a new revenue stream for a government that can't be trusted with the ones it has now.
I'm not sure what happened to the GOP but if this is the line of thinking it has now - tax increases for everyone and new revenue for the government - I'm thinking they may be closer to liberals than they were in supporting McCain.
I'm not so sure those defending Cain's 999 plan are conservatives as there are lots of libertarians and closet liberals on 24hr.
As I demonstrated in a post on Sunday it would be easy for the wealthy to avoid all income taxes by converting ordinary income into capital gains under Cain�s 999 plan. At the other end of the economic spectrum retired folks would see a 9% tax increase compared to the current system.
Because of the loopholes in Cain's simpleton 999 plan, tax revenues would drop dramatically and increase the deficit and debt requiring either an increase in the tax rates, or rules and regulations to close the loopholes. In the end Cain's plan will be neither simple or have low rates. Cain-sian economics simply doesn't work.
Making such a radical and unproven structural change to such a foundational function of the government is something liberals are known for. Nationalizing 9% of private savings is something communists are known for. Cain is no conservative in the traditional meaning of that word. He's best described as a radical rightist willing to recklessly take the nation in directions obviously beyond his knowledge or understanding. Regardless of the tax issue, I wouldn't trust such a person to be in charge of foreign policy and commander in chief.
I can't see a libertarian supporting a new revenue stream for the government in the form of a consumption tax while at the same time supporting the continuation of a payroll tax.
I confess to not knowing how a liberal thinks so they may actually be for it.
I am not 100% sure of this but I am going to bet that as Cain gets vetted we will see that he is not as desirable as he appears right now. His tax plan sounds great because most of us would like to see some kind of improvement in the current system. As more questions are asked we are finding that Cain has very few answers and really is very uninformed on this issue. This 999 plan is looking more and more like a talking point with very little chance of becoming law and that is a good thing.
We need to be clear about how shifting most of the tax burden to the middle class and lower middle class will affect most of us and benefit the top 1%-Koch Brothers. It appears that this is more of a gimmick and less of a fix unless your name is Koch. Anyone who thinks the upper 1% needs more tax protection is nuts because the bottom line is if you consume anything this tax plan will punish you in huge ways.
I own a hunting and fishing outfitting service in Alaska. I buy new Rafts, tents and gear almost every year. If I cannot write off these expenses as investments into my business I will stop buying new rafts at $4,500 a pop and start buying used rafts at $2,000 a pop so I can avoid the tax. Adding 9% to my costs will have to translate to my hunters making an already expensive hunt that much more costly.
When we start taxing new items, especially ones that are not made in the USA we are forcing businessmen to buy used and this will force lots of suppliers out of business, lots of you out of a job and of course lots of people will choose not to come to Alaska to go on hunting and fishing trips, hurting me. This is a nasty circle!
I really don't think this is what we want guys! We need to look long and hard at Cain and when he answers questions about his Tax plan with "I have no idea" we need to be very skeptical.
We�d all like a simpler tax system, one without a ton of loopholes for special interests. Whether Cain's 999 proposal is realistic or not (I doubt it), he is right in that deductions need to be curtailed so everyone shares the pain.
That said, I do believe the wealthy should pay a higher percentage than the poorer folks. And, I am one who would pay more under any increases.
I am not 100% sure of this but I am going to bet that as Cain gets vetted we will see that he is not as desirable as he appears right now. His tax plan sounds great because most of us would like to see some kind of improvement in the current system. As more questions are asked we are finding that Cain has very few answers and really is very uninformed on this issue. This 999 plan is looking more and more like a talking point with very little chance of becoming law and that is a good thing.
We need to be clear about how shifting most of the tax burden to the middle class and lower middle class will affect most of us and benefit the top 1%-Koch Brothers. It appears that this is more of a gimmick and less of a fix unless your name is Koch. Anyone who thinks the upper 1% needs more tax protection is nuts because the bottom line is if you consume anything this tax plan will punish you in huge ways.
I own a hunting and fishing outfitting service in Alaska. I buy new Rafts, tents and gear almost every year. If I cannot write off these expenses as investments into my business I will stop buying new rafts at $4,500 a pop and start buying used rafts at $2,000 a pop so I can avoid the tax. Adding 9% to my costs will have to translate to my hunters making an already expensive hunt that much more costly.
When we start taxing new items, especially ones that are not made in the USA we are forcing businessmen to buy used and this will force lots of suppliers out of business, lots of you out of a job and of course lots of people will choose not to come to Alaska to go on hunting and fishing trips, hurting me. This is a nasty circle!
I really don't think this is what we want guys! We need to look long and hard at Cain and when he answers questions about his Tax plan with "I have no idea" we need to be very skeptical.
Don�t have a heart attack, but I�m fixin� to agree with you.
No tax plan is perfect, but Fair tax plans are more fair than most, all have drawbacks.
Used vs. new goods is one of the problems with a Fair/Sales/Consumption Tax plan.
What is to stop your raft supplier from selling you new $4500 rafts as used �demonstrators� for $4450 and no sales tax? If the raft bottom has been wet it becomes a used demo�
If I am going to buy new I am willing to pay the bucks because I get a warrantee. A demo Raft is without a warrantee and thus a used raft. I currently have a raft that just fell of its warrantee by 2 months and I am having huge floor strength issues. I am responsible for the repair costs (about $800+) and I understand that if it is a used raft.
How about the guy who has a fleet of Ford Taurus cars all with parts made in Mexico, Japan and who knows where else. It does not qualify as a write off so he chooses not to buy New Fords in trade for Rental Trade ins (used) and lots of auto workers loose their jobs as a result. [bleep]$ deal. Cain is without a clue when it comes to this 999 plan.
If I am going to buy new I am willing to pay the bucks because I get a warrantee. A demo Raft is without a warrantee and thus a used raft. I currently have a raft that just fell of its warrantee by 2 months and I am having huge floor strength issues. I am responsible for the repair costs (about $800+) and I understand that if it is a used raft.
How about the guy who has a fleet of Ford Taurus cars all with parts made in Mexico, Japan and who knows where else. It does not qualify as a write off so he chooses not to buy New Fords in trade for Rental Trade ins (used) and lots of auto workers loose their jobs as a result. [bleep]$ deal. Cain is without a clue when it comes to this 999 plan.
I can and have bought demo cars with all their remaining mileage and time warranty left on them.
Easy workaround in a Fair tax world. There would be many changes in the business as usual world.
You don�t become as a successful CEO as Cain has without some clue!!!!
And Cain has been smart enough to develop 999 with some real smart people who have, no doubt, already thought of your/my problem(s).
This cracks me up. I have never owned a new car in my life. I have bought several program cars that were less than a year old and had lots of warranty left.
I see crying here buy folks who probably have no clue what hardship is.
....the corn seed is consumed (planted)... ....the corn the farmer planted is not the seed he will sell.. ....using traditional accounting principles, your example doesn't clear the one-year hurdle....
The only way that your hypothetical corn seed could be construed as a capital asset would be a farmer buying seed corn, holding it over a period of one year, and selling that same seed into an appreciated market and thus realizing a gain.
And if the farmer did that...he should NOT have to pay taxes.
I'm waiting on a response, MacLorry.....chirp, chirp
[quote=isaac]Anyone working in their own business where they are organized as a subchapter S corp. will see an additional tax increase because Cain's plan eliminates the tax free pass through such corporations now enjoy. That's most small businesses; that's most job creators in this country. That's why Cain's plan is dumb dumb dumb. =================
It is a "pass through" Corporation because it makes no profit, all income is paid out as salary or dividend.
Don't worry, Perry is now introducing a revolutionary new idea... it's called a "flat tax". That boy is truly a visionary! And the timing of this revelation is really confidence inspiring.
I am not 100% sure of this but I am going to bet that as Cain gets vetted we will see that he is not as desirable as he appears right now. His tax plan sounds great because most of us would like to see some kind of improvement in the current system. As more questions are asked we are finding that Cain has very few answers and really is very uninformed on this issue. This 999 plan is looking more and more like a talking point with very little chance of becoming law and that is a good thing.
We need to be clear about how shifting most of the tax burden to the middle class and lower middle class will affect most of us and benefit the top 1%-Koch Brothers. It appears that this is more of a gimmick and less of a fix unless your name is Koch. Anyone who thinks the upper 1% needs more tax protection is nuts because the bottom line is if you consume anything this tax plan will punish you in huge ways.
I own a hunting and fishing outfitting service in Alaska. I buy new Rafts, tents and gear almost every year. If I cannot write off these expenses as investments into my business I will stop buying new rafts at $4,500 a pop and start buying used rafts at $2,000 a pop so I can avoid the tax. Adding 9% to my costs will have to translate to my hunters making an already expensive hunt that much more costly.
When we start taxing new items, especially ones that are not made in the USA we are forcing businessmen to buy used and this will force lots of suppliers out of business, lots of you out of a job and of course lots of people will choose not to come to Alaska to go on hunting and fishing trips, hurting me. This is a nasty circle!
I really don't think this is what we want guys! We need to look long and hard at Cain and when he answers questions about his Tax plan with "I have no idea" we need to be very skeptical.
Flat Tax or Fair Tax or 999...It's a win-win.
If you don�t like the used/demo/no sales tax route for buying new rafts; try this:
ARTHUR B. LAFFER WSJ 10/19 By making the tax codes a lot simpler, we'd allow individuals and businesses to spend a lot less on maintaining tax records; filing taxes; hiring lawyers, accountants and tax-deferral experts; and lobbying Congress. As I wrote on this page earlier this year ("The 30-Cent Tax Premium," April 18), for every dollar of business and personal income taxes paid, some 30 cents in out-of-pocket expenses also were paid to comply with the tax code. Under 9-9-9, these expenses would plummet without a penny being lost to the U.S. Treasury. It's a win-win.
That new raft would have cost you $4500 plus 9% sales tax. $4905.
But because the raft manufacturer really, really wants you the rafting outfitter to keep buying their rafts, under the new tax codes he will pass a good chunk of his 30% out-of-pocket expense savings on to his retailer.
Because the raft retailer really wants you the rafting outfitter to keep buying their rafts, he will pass most of that savings on to you and add a good chunk of his savings to the deal.
Tell you what we�re gonna do�knock ten percent off the raft price�$4050...
You know they saved more than that, so you counteroffer $3950.
They know your business is seeing the same kind of tax saving as they are so they say no and you guys agree to $4000 even..
The new raft will cost you $4000 plus 9% sales tax. $4360 Whatta deal! You saved $545!
Now here comes the sweet part.
Because Alaskan rafting trips are expensive, most of your customers will be in the mid to higher tax brackets and enjoying those tax savings Art Laffer was talking about. They can now afford more rafting trips.
Because the raft retailer really wants you the rafting outfitter to keep buying their rafts, he will pass most of that savings on to you and add a good chunk of his savings to the deal.
Because Alaskan rafting trips are expensive, most of your customers will be in the mid to higher tax brackets and enjoying those tax savings Art Laffer was talking about.
Not going to fly!
Most of my clients are from Alaska and are working class guys trying to land Kings at an affordable price. My hunting clients are working class guys from the lower 48 who have saved for 3-4 years for this trip. I target the average Joe and my prices reflect that. I have not raised my prices in 5 years and I would like to this year but maybe not.
Sounds great but so does Palin until she opens her mouth to speak. (nails on the chalk board stuff)
Yes and my point is they are working class guys who do not have lots of extra $ and I need to keep my prices in that ball park.9% more will prevent some of them from coming up. I also get lots of well off guys. I have had the VP of Wells Fargo and a number of well to do business owners on board. They will keep coming back because it is what they do for fun and my prices are nicer for them as well. I could retarget the higher end but I really like working with guys like you and I who are down to earth hunters looking for that Alaskan experience. Prices need to be kept low!
Because the raft retailer really wants you the rafting outfitter to keep buying their rafts, he will pass most of that savings on to you and add a good chunk of his savings to the deal.
Because Alaskan rafting trips are expensive, most of your customers will be in the mid to higher tax brackets and enjoying those tax savings Art Laffer was talking about.
Not going to fly!
Most of my clients are from Alaska and are working class guys trying to land Kings at an affordable price. My hunting clients are working class guys from the lower 48 who have saved for 3-4 years for this trip. I target the average Joe and my prices reflect that. I have not raised my prices in 5 years and I would like to this year but maybe not.
Sounds great but so does Palin until she opens her mouth to speak. (nails on the chalk board stuff)
Working class guys are included in the "The 30-Cent Tax Premium" so you are still hopefully gonna need more rafts.
I still think a straight flat tax is more doable�more sellable to the voters than a Fair sales tax. No Constitutional amendment problems.
But Flat tax or Fair tax or 999... as Laffer says�It's a win-win.
You are as wrong about 999 as you are about Palin, the most popular political speaker in our lifetime.
In all my battles correcting the Palin record I have never understood the nails on the chalk board stuff that the record sell out crowds never hear and keep coming back for more.
Yes and my point is they are working class guys who do not have lots of extra $ and I need to keep my prices in that ball park.9% more will prevent some of them from coming up. I also get lots of well off guys. I have had the VP of Wells Fargo and a number of well to do business owners on board. They will keep coming back because it is what they do for fun and my prices are nicer for them as well. I could retarget the higher end but I really like working with guys like you and I who are down to earth hunters looking for that Alaskan experience. Prices need to be kept low!
What is your current tax rate on your guiding income?
I bet it's more than 9 percent.
If you lower your prices to compensate for the federal tax, you have just as many customers...
I don't expect a greedy little socialist bitch like you to actually DO that, but there it is.
As it stands you are far too stupid to be either a business owner OR a registered Alaskan guide.
Flat Tax or Fair Tax or 999...It's a win-win. .......
All those plans do are shift taxes from one group to another.
Unless there's a dramatic decrease in government spending, there's no way anyone's tax bill will go down unless someone else's taxes go up.
Smoke and mirrors by politicians, ...who'd have thunk it? [/quote
So what part of saving money with a simple tax system as opposed to the thousands of pages of the present code don�t you understand?
ARTHUR B. LAFFER WSJ 10/19 By making the tax codes a lot simpler, we'd allow individuals and businesses to spend a lot less on maintaining tax records; filing taxes; hiring lawyers, accountants and tax-deferral experts; and lobbying Congress. As I wrote on this page earlier this year ("The 30-Cent Tax Premium," April 18), for every dollar of business and personal income taxes paid, some 30 cents in out-of-pocket expenses also were paid to comply with the tax code. Under 9-9-9, these expenses would plummet without a penny being lost to the U.S. Treasury. It's a win-win.
Which candidate could you possibly be referring to? 
)
![[Linked Image]](http://traditionalchristianity.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/its-not-fair.jpg)
.