Posted on 09/27/2011 1:36:16 PM PDT by xzins
So they spent the money they collected for taxes? Tsk tsk. They deserved what they got. I grew up in retail establishments, and we never once spent tax revenues on the business.
First, it means the underground economy would contribute and so would illegal aliens via the 9% sales tax on new items only.
Second, there is federal taxation but those three flat-rate categories. No FICA, no estate, no loopholes.
Since there's no FICA, all workers will pay less than they currently do.
The 9-9-9 rates can easily be locked in with a good balanced budget amendment like the one associated with Cut, Cap & Balance which requires two-thirds supermajority votes in congress to raise any tax rates.
That army was a joke by the time 1860 rolled around, with fewer than 20,000 men spread out on the border and dozens of forts across the country that it didn't have the troops to man them. By 1865 it was the best in the world, but I imagine the Civil War had something to do with that. And it wasn't funded by tariffs, either. By 1899 it was back to being a joke.
How much money do you think it would take to cover the military, the judiciary, Congress, and commerce? Everything else is better kept at the state level. I’d say a trillion would still be too much.
Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs - about $780 billion
Justice - about $25 billion
Commerce - about $15 billion
That defunds completely Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, State, Agriculture, NASA, and every other federal agency. No food inspections. No air traffic control. No FEMA. And it's still roughly 35 times current tariff revenue.
I think we could have our current military for half the money, iow, about 350 billion bucks.
Not with meeting current commitments. That would get rid of more than half the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marine Corps. And bring their capabilities back to the same kind of levels we had in 1860, in 1917, and in 1941.
The employee rate is not 14%. FICA + MED is 7.65 on ADJUSTED gross income. (6.2 and 1.45). Compare that with a sales tax on 1/2 to 3/4 an average worker’s GROSS income. Call it a wash for the guy with a 40,000 income.
9% income tax on 40,000 = 3600.
Current income tax on income after all deductions and then subtracting credits leaves families with children near Zero to pay. With no children after standard deduction, retirement exclusions, business-related expense, medical savings and educational savings exclusions will give a lower rate than 3600.
Cain’s plan can be run against as a HUGE tax increase on those making the least.
It will lose.
We defeated the British in 1814, demolished the Mexicans just with Texans in 1835, put down every Indian confederation throughout the entire period, conquered Mexico itself in 1846, and were the dominant military in the Americas, and one of the premier militaries in the world, excepting the British, French, and Prussians.
We did not, however, concentrate on projecting power. Ours was essentially a citizen army, but the SYSTEM worked.
If you know your taxes and know what you pay, the 999 plan may save you a lot. I know we would be paying less taxes even with the sales tax.
See post #144.
Unless there is a new amendment to the Constitution that simultaneously (1) repeals the income tax, 16th amendment, and (2) institutes the sales tax, there will simply be a scramble by politicians who will add the sales tax and will never get around to ending the income tax as it now stands.
Politicians love to raise taxes. They love to spend.
Why are conservatives, of all things, concentrating on raising taxes with this 999 Mark of Cain instead of concentrating on cutting spending to the bare bones?
See #227
Please don’t assume I am not for cuts and big ones too.
How? Never elect any candidate who isn’t a radical about cutting spending.
I’m convinced this country could run as is with only 50% of the money. And I’m further convinced that it could be even less if we simply have a Federal government that consists only of funding Defense, Judiciary, Treasury and Commerce.
Everything else is NOT a federal issue and should be returned to the states.
You realize, don’t you, that we do not now have a national sales tax?
Why, if conservatives want to radically cut spending, will we want to add a new tax after we’ve cut spending to the bone?
We won’t need any new tax. That is just an invitation for politicians to spend more.
Cain flunks the gun rights test.
Although Cain says he supports the Second Amendment, in the next breath he says he fully supports any and all state gun control/prohibitions.
That is like supporting federal rights for women and blacks, but allowing women and blacks to be slaves if the state laws permit them to be slaves.
I will not support any candidate who allows, and favors, individual states to outlaw guns, or to take away womens voting rights, or to allow slavery, or to prohibit free speech, etc. .
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php
The right to keep and bear arms is absolutely clear in the US Constitution. There can be no “states rights” issue regarding guns, since that is not a power left to the states.
I can see a state thinking it has state authority over marriage, since it’s not mentioned in the constitution, but to pretend that is any way similar to guns is beyond the pale.
If Cain thinks states can take away guns, then he is not well read in the US Constitution, OR he is simply a clandestine rino.
He is weak on life, wrong on guns, and in favor of adding a new tax, that might/maybe someday be accompanied by the end of the income tax (read: never in this lifetime.)
That's actually his point (see post #29). He also says the intent is to be revenue neutral. You really need to read the whole plan.
A successful business would never be put in the position of making the choice or so to say be tempted.
My objection is that a businessman in trouble is tempted. Also businesses are put to the expense of dealing with the taxes. The paper work takes up time that could be better spent on dealing with real business issues.
Dealing with tax audits and accountants is an additional headache that business people do not need.
You wrote:
“Although Cain says he supports the Second Amendment, in the next breath he says he *fully* supports *any and all* state gun control/prohibitions.”
In contrast stand the facts of what he actually said, in context:
BLITZER: All right. Let’s talk about gun control. Do you support any gun control?
CAIN: I support the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: So you don’t — so what’s the answer on gun control?
CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support strong — strongly support the Second Amendment. I don’t support, you know, onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to control the gun situation? Or should...
CAIN: Yes.
BLITZER: The answer is yes?
CAIN: The answer is yes. That should be a state’s decision.
You are right. The tax system needs to be changed, not added to.
The American Continental Army was an army formed after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War by the colonies that became the United States of America. Established by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775, it was created to coordinate the military efforts of the Thirteen Colonies in their revolt against the rule of Great Britain. The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and other troops that remained under control of the individual states. General George Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the army throughout the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army
There is more at the link. Very interesting stuff. :-)
Right on Marie!
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.