Posted on 10/16/2011 2:32:45 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
>> Now tell me Cain is not trying to pull the right into Romney’s camp when he picks him as his VP.
Yeah, Cain’s unabashed support of Romney is (WARNING! METAPHOR COLLISION AHEAD!) the 800 pound gorilla in the living room.
The fact is, Cain with his gimmickry is *not* the anti-Romney — he’s pulling in the same harness. Federal sales tax, indeed. Perry, with his “make government inconsequential in our lives” philosophy, IS the anti-Romney.
From a 2007 Heritage analysis:
Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts;
Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts;
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets." Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. . . . If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work.
Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP. Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment).
Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. Claims that tax cuts benefit the economy by "putting money in people's pockets" represent the flip side of the pump-priming fallacy. Instead, the right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms, thereby encouraging more productive behavior.
Yet some propose demand-side tax cuts to "put money in people's pockets" and "get people to spend money." The 2001 tax rebates serve as an example: Washington borrowed billions from investors and then mailed that money to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, this simple transfer of existing wealth caused a temporary increase in consumer spending and a corresponding decrease in investment but led to no new economic growth. No new wealth was created because the tax rebate was unrelated to productive behavior. No one had to work, save, or invest more to receive a rebate. Simply redistributing existing wealth does not create new wealth.
In contrast, marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989.[15] More recently, the 2003 tax cuts helped to bring about strong economic growth for the past three years.
Like Trump said when criticizing Paul Ryan's plan, "you don't throw the whole thing out there so the press and the Dems can carve it up, you give it to them piecemeal and while their still chewing on it, hit them with the next phase" (or something like that).
That is what Perry is doing. His first phase is a jump start to the economy. The next phase coming in 10 days will address taxes and entitlements.
I know CW posted a link to the full transcript of Perry's speech a couple days ago.
The cashisnt gone, its called income by another person.
You are telling me no one pays 9% more on earnings already taxed and saved?
Then, as a good religious man, how could you vote for Cain?
After all, you base your vote on a person’s last name... and G-d cursed Cain, you know.
:-P
Things you already pay taxes on at a higher rate.
Oh, the plan is garage sales?
**********************************
If we are to use garage sales to avoid retail, will *Resale Roundup* be addressed? Though, I do suppose that law falls under the democrats ‘jobs created/saved’ plan—lawyers have a new open door.
Also, if they don’t remove the 9% on food people are SOL, as I doubt anyone will be seeking out ABC food. Though we could suggest our seniors dumpster dive. Seems to be somewhat the rage these days.
I give Cain a pass on the bailout mess, many big-heads thought it was a good idea. Owning the banks? The only republican I recall that thought that might be a good idea is Lindsey Graham. There may be more...it has been a while. Graham is just the one that stands out to me.
Cain’s position to own the banks registers as—Fed man— in my thinking. And how good was that Greenspan, best in last 40 years!
All those ‘hidden’ savings that we’ll never see?
Even if Cain were to upset Perry, Romney will crush him in a one on one debate.
But SS and savings were already taxed once, 999 will tax it again.
What makes you so special that you shouldn’t pay a tax that those who support you are paying?
Herman Cain is going to be vetted for the 2012 election?
Is Obama going to be vetted for the 2012 election?
So I guess you are saying there is no hidden taxes on goods and services right? Where is your proof?
Here is mine before you ask.
Those ‘hidden taxes’ will wind up a hidden savings too. We will never see them.
Thank you for the link and the information.
Under Cains plan your sales tax will go up %9 and the FEDs will be on you for it.
shield -- FReeper palmer wants on the *ping" list -- is interested in upcoming Gov. Perry policy roll-outs.
Thanks.
Hardly the same thing at all. One can be shown mathmaticaly, the other only in leftists minds.
All their after tax savings have already been taxed. A national sales tax, like 999, is a total fail. DOA along with who it is tied to.
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.