Posted on 10/13/2011 2:31:28 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
You know something, I wouldn’t expect any better from you than a post like that.
It's still a bad idea. I can't believe anyone -- esp. a conservative --- would vote for a guy who is proposing more taxes and more federal bureaucracy to administer them.
Excellent analysis at the link from a genuine economist, thank you. I have to say, for once, liberal media got it right... their analyses are the same: incredible breaks for big, big corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals, while Joe Average gets screwed, the moreso the poorer one is.
What ever happened to the “cloth coat Republican?”
Excellent analysis at the link from a genuine economist, thank you. I have to say, for once, liberal media got it right... their analyses are the same: incredible breaks for big, big corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals, while Joe Average gets screwed, the moreso the poorer one is.
What ever happened to the “cloth coat Republican?”
The problem with that is, all analyses of Cain's '9-9-9' point to a REVENUE NEGATIVE result, whereas he claims it is REVENUE NEUTRAL. Still a problem.
———while Joe Average gets screwed———
With 50% not paying taxes, joe average or joe barely average is getting a free ride. The key to solvency is to not raise taxes but make more people actually pay taxes.
The status quo is unsustainable. The money is in the pockets of those who pay no taxes and those who get refunds and have no actual earnings to tax. the tax system has progressed to unsustainability. The reform must increase the number of tax payers, including joe and some his just below average compadres
So Joe Average doesn’t belong in the Tea Party then, since their motto is “taxed enough already.”
The net result of this plan is that the “poor” would have to pay federal taxes the same rate that the “rich” do. It undoes decades of progressive tax law designed to confiscate a huge percentage of the federal budget from the wealthy.
I believe it has to be “sold” that way. It is a tax hike for the working poor and a cut for the highest wage earners and corporations.
But that is only one half of the net result.
If implemented, all past economic history would point to a absolute economic BOON for the US. With a very competitive corporate tax rate, foreign investment would balloon. Unemployment would plummet, which would remove more pressure on the expense side of the federal budget and add a substantial boost to revenues on the income side of the ledger.
Some of the economic impact of illegal immigration would be eased as well, if aliens were taxed 9% on income and another 9% whenever thy buy US products while here illegally. The wages paid to illegals would not disappear off of the map, never to be subject to taxation.
How many times have we heard “the rich don’t pay their ‘fair share’”? The American people have been so horribly brainwashed by socialism that they don’t know what a “fair” tax scheme would actually look like. A TRULY “fair tax” would not even be a flat percentage. It would be a fair division of the federal tax burden upon every single eligible taxpayer:
US Federal Spending: approx. $3.6 trillion
# US Taxpayers: approx. 112.300,000
= $32k per year PER TAXPAYER
Now seeing that we all benefit more or less equally from the federal government’s official functions—military protection, diplomacy, federal roads and bridges, EPA, CDC, courts, etc., how is it even “fair” that a flat percentage of a person’s income be confiscated? If a ditch digger pays $500/year in federal taxes and a billionaire pays $100 million in a given tax year, did the billionaire receive 200,000x the benefit from the federal government than the ditch digger did? No way.
A “flat tax” is still progressive. The rich still pay WAY more than the poor. Also, the “rich” buy more goods and services, which are subject to even more taxation under the 999 Cain plan.
When nearly 50% of eligible voters pay nothing in taxes, none of them have any “skin in the game.” Of COURSE they will always vote for liberal democrats who confiscate more goodies for them from the more productive and successful members of our society. If they actually PAID IN, they might be a little more circumspect with regard to how THEIR tax contributions were being spent.
Herman Cain’s tax plan should be honestly presented for what it is: tax reform that realigns the burden more evenly across the income spectrum, taxation that completely stops the leftist social engineering projects of a corrupt Congress, and taxation that is absolutely guaranteed to stoke the US economy, all of which, when combined with entitlement reform and the dismantling of much of Washington’s wasteful bureaucracy, might be the only way to reverse the budget shortfalls and pay down the national debt. While strong medicine, maintaining the status quo will eventually result in default on our outstanding debt.
Not “less” taxes. Simpler, more fair, less manipulative, yes. For lowest income taxpayers, however, it is a net tax increase, as anything more than zero is a tax increase! Sure, it’s a tough sell, but it should be a important “teachable moment” for our society. I hope Cain has the conviction, charm, and persuasive power to pull it off.
BTW, I cannot conceive how any economist would insist that the 999 plan would result in less revenue into the federal government. Maybe during year one. After that, the economy would white-hot with new investment, foreign and domestic.
Wages are an expense, just like any other expense. If the Cain tax is on profits only then it's a moot issue. If your company makes a million dollars and has $500,000 in salaries and $350,000 in other costs you will be taxed only on the $150,000 difference between expenses and revenue.
9% income tax needs to be on just 50-75% of income to be at the same level vis a vis middle americans.
That doesn't seem to be in the cards under Cain's plan. The only deduction is for charitable contributions.
9% sales has to have a staple foods exemption.
Doesn't look like that's in the cards, either. Cain has said only used items would be exempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.