Posted on 09/27/2011 1:36:16 PM PDT by xzins
Have you heard about 999? Sorry, it isn't a German Hausfrau admonishing her children. What is 999? It's a new tax scheme dreamed up by Republican candidate, Herman Cain. In his plan, we have a 9% corporate tax, a 9% income tax, and a 9% sales tax.
Here is the bottom line: 999 is one tax MORE than we now have. Argue all you like about the 9% rate, but know this, we are NOT now paying a national sales tax of 9%.
Please consider this. Governments love to tax. Governments love taxing so much that they will at times violate their own Constitution in their frenzy to find more tax money to fill their coffers. Fortunately, when that occurs, citizens do have some recourse in appealing to the courts the violation of their Constitution, as is the case of the individual mandate in ObamaCare.
Not so with the 999 of Herman Cain. The Constitution says that an income tax is acceptable. It speaks nary a word about a corporate tax, meaning that taxes not specifically forbidden are OK. That means a 9% sales tax can also be easily instituted by simple act of Congress.
Remember, governments loving taxes is a passion surpassing that of teenage boys loving teenage girls. They love them so much that our current income tax, once a percent or two of one's income, is now ranging into the high 30 percent. After all, they are Congress and the only thing preventing tax hikes is elections, and even they don't seem to prevent them awfully well.
So imagine that innocent looking 999 some day being 101010 or 121212 or even 303030. What's to prevent it? Absolutely nothing.
Without a Constitutional amendment setting those precise limits, or, in my opinion, an amendment that ends the socially manipulative income tax altogether and forever, those meek little 9's are very dangerous seeds planted that will grow and grow.
Therefore, there is no doubt about 999. America's response should be "Nein, nein, nein!"
Give those seniors a sales tax rebate option. .... dirtboy
Is than in the 999 Plan?
If so, then show us the link.
If not, then that is merely the "Dirtboy Plan".
Seniors are currently the wealthiest segment of the population.
How conservative of you. Do you write Obama's class warfare talking points for his speeches?
We can come up with ways to protect the low-end outliers in that demographic.
We? What do you mean "we"?
The discussion is about Cain's 999 Plan. Show us where this detail is addressed in HIS Plan.
I have my own concerns with a Federal sales tax. But at least Cain is putting out a plan to be analyzed.
That is what we are doing: ANALYZING it.
Your idea of analysis is throwing out ad hominems without even referencing what is and what is not in Cain's plan.
And, quite frankly, your scare-the-seniors tactic against Cain’s 999 proposal reeks of Dem opportunism. Are you really sure you wish to pursue that kind of approach on FR?
See my Post 178.
Hey, Dirt"boy", I just retired so I represent that remark. Are you still in your boyish 30's and living from paycheck to paycheck without any savings worth picking up off of the floor?
I should pay a cumulative tax rate of over 40% on my entire life savings in order to pick up the tax slack for you?
I am putting out straightforward, simple mathematical arguments and all you are doing is responding with argumentum ad hominem like a brainless liberal.
Those are the cold hard numbers. If you can not address those numbers of HOW Cain's Plan 999 SPECIFICALLY addresses the issue of double taxation, then you are not offering any more value to this debate than the liberal that shouts "Fascist!" or "Racist!" if you question an Obama idea.
‘m a pastor, and that’s simply not true. All of us pay income taxes PLUS social security at the self-employed rate PLUS tax on all benefits.
That is my biggest issue with a new fair tax proposal. It is great to tell people you are exchanging their income tax with a sales tax. It’s a wash.
But what about all those people who have savings, all of which were already taxed? Now they have to endure a sales tax as if they re-earned the income.
It is a punishment to people who saved their money. And I don’t know how to avoid it — you’d need to exempt current savings, but how would you track that so people couldn’t cheat?
I have to admit that I’m very intrigue by Herman Cain’s “999” tax plan. I’ll have to dig into it further. One group I think will be opposed to it are the people living on a fixed income.
I’m living of a fixed income (retired) but I’m willing to give the Hermanator a try.
It could work if the cost of goods and services are lower than with our current tax code.
“Seniors are currently the wealthiest segment of the population. “
Not anymore. Those with money are dying off. The rest took huge hits in the stock market and low interest rates.
I know seniors who are now trying to live on $600 per month.
My point was that Perry was adressing his opponents.
In your post on that thread, you linked a video, edited by ultra-liberal MSNBC for Chris Matthew's "Hardball" program, that edited out the beginning of his answer that mentioned "the people on this stage" that had been on constant attack about this issue all night.
But, if you want to feel personally insulted, that is your right.
I have given up on Perry. He is living up to his 2.2 GPA in college and cannot articulate why, in a State as conservative as Texas, 98% of the State Legislature supported this measure.
As Michael Reagan noted, if 1980 Ronald Reagan were running today, he would be ripped apart as a RINO.
So, you won.
Perry did not pass the test of Survival of the Fittest.
We will see if Hermann Cain or Sarah Palin end up defeating first Mitt Romney and then Obama.
However, if Cain thinks he can end up DOUBLE TAXING my entire life's savings and those of every other retired person without a fight, he is wrong. See my Post 178.
The 999 Plan has very serious flaws that need to be addressed or Cain will be the next candidate the long knives will come out for. Maybe the left-wing media will hold back during the primaries but, once the opponent is Obama, the full frontal assault will begin.
And don't forget the effect on SAVERS. See my Post 178.
Yes, I have done so back last election when a group of pastors vowed to do so.
And, you might not have known it, but every employee of a church pays taxes.
The church’s so-called “tax exemption” is about the donations of our givers being tax deductible. It is not about the offerings received by a church being taxable. There is no court that would be willing to suggest taxing offerings, since that would violate the first amendment provision of separation and free exercise.
First, even if a member finds his donations no longer tax deductible, there would in most cases be no injury, for many people don’t have enough deductions to exceed the automatic deduction level.
So, this desire to tax churches simply will bear little fruit. I’ve pinged some lawyers in case they wish to comment.
So you find it abhorrent to voluntarily pay a tax as aposed to it being pilfered at the point of gun? I find that difficult to believe. Retail businesses already have the infrastructure in place to collect sales tax. It's not much of a stretch to extend that to the Feds. That said, the 16th needs to first be repealed.
The only other solution is to go to some serious tariffing. For some reason that's off the table.
I guarantee that a final sales tax bill will exempt anyone making less than X amount. The government will issue exemption cards.
They can opt out of social security but not of income tax. I’m not sure about medicare.
However, most pastors receive a mere pittance from their congregations, so it is far more beneficial for them to be vested in social security UNLESS they have some legitimate religious conviction that it violates.
There are very few pastors receiving a salary that will enable them to invest enough to return as much as social security would provide them.
You are a typical troll saying Cain hasn't thought of everything. Guess what? NO ONE DOES. At least Cain has put his ideas out for discussion. Where is Perry's proposal to change the tax code?
The U.S. tariff revenue in 2010 was less than $26 billion. That wouldn't provide 5% of our defense spending, much less fund everything else you identify as constitutional.
The U.S. tariff revenue in 2010 was less than $26 billion. That wouldn't provide 5% of our defense spending, much less fund everything else you identify as constitutional.
After some initial heat from my wife, I believe I would continue giving in the same amount, or close to it.
Tariffs can be increased against those who don’t permit free flow of American goods into their countries.
Specifically, the US can fund itself in a manner consistent with the original constitution and the intentions of the Founders.
===========================
"I'm a single mom making about $23,000 a year. I DO think the wealthy pay disproportionately high tax rates. If corporations had lower taxes maybe more people would be hired and make more per year. I DON"T get any help from the government and I DON'T expect to. But a 9% income tax would really hurt and a 9% federal tax on top of local and state taxes would probably make it necessary for me to finally need help."
===========================
If states can issue exemption numbers, then the Fed can issue exemption cards.
And they will, too.
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.