Posted on 10/08/2011 10:18:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
I loved the Tea Party concept back when Santelli made his famous rant. I remember watching it that morning. And I attended the tea party rally that it spawned, on tax day, whatever year that was (09?).
But since then, the Tea Party has morphed into just the usual nonsense. And when you have the Tea Party coalescing around a guy who WANTS TO TAX TEA, you know it's gone completely off the rails.
Your entire post was nonsense, and this one is evasion.
No reason to get so touchy. I didn't set myself up as the arbiter of who is electable or who isn't. That is not the primary function of political debate. Just because someone gets themselves on TV doesn't mean they know WTF they're talking about.
Btw, if you're going to quote someone, properly delineate from your verbiages so as not to confuse with editorializing.
Oh, no problem. Look at it this way....the payroll tax every single worker in US pays id based on your GROSS paycheck. You pay 7.5% and the employer pays 7.5%.
Then from your gross pay you have to pay the income tax withholding, state tax if any, city tax if any, property tax, mortgage payment, car payment, and if you are lucky you put away some of your money in savings or a tax deferred retirement plan such as 401-K or 403-B. What is left after all those expenses is what you have left to actually spend. You may call it your discretionary spending money. It is obviously lot smaller than your gross paycheck because of all those fixed expenses. But the good news is you will not be paying any federal sales tax on all those items because none of that is purchase of a NEW item.
So, the 9% sales tax will apply only to that discretionary money you might spend buying stuff. And you pay that federal sales tax only if you buy new items. A used car purchase or a buying a used house has no sales tax because it was already paid by the original buyer.
Then you add the tax savings on dividends and capital gains, and death tax on any large inheritance. So my guess is the federal sales tax will be lot lower for most people than the sum of all your other tax savings.
Best of all it will make it easier for people to get richer since income tax will be a flat 9% no matter how much money one makes.
You argue on the level of a second grader. Ignoring rational arguments that come your way and throwing a tantrum at anyone who dares challenge you.
You didn’t make any rational argument. You made a facile appeal to authority as a means of dodging the issue in question.
I dodged nothing. I’m not the one who summed up Cain’s qualifications and track record of saving failing businesses as “selling bad pizza.”
Why don’t you insult his mother while you’re at it? It would show as much depth of thought as any of your posts.
You want direct. Here’s direct. The man has a degree in mathematics (FYI, that tends to be useful in forming economic plans) and experience managing and saving large business structures. That combined with his socially conservative positions and ability to communicate them to people makes him a good candidate.
Note how I didn’t find it necessary to denigrate any other candidate in making the above statement.
‘Let’s beat Obama with a Cain!’
Cheers!
Thank you for the cogent explanationg.
I’ve been for the Fair Tax for years, but I was concerned about a complete switch. I was hoping to see it work in a state or two, before committing the whole country. Cain’s plan really takes care of that concern for me.
Not trying to be critical in any way. I am confused about what exactly you want. I put Franlin’s words in quotes and blank lines both above and below to separate his words from mine.
Never mind, I got confused about which post you were refering to. Sorry I made a mistake and messed up my html tags after running the spell check.
I’ve jumped on the Cain train.
The encouraging thing about this poll is that Romney may have gotten 19%, but the people voting for the other surely don’t have Romney as their second choice. Romney might as well pack it in.
And, BTW, Mormonism is a cult; and it’s not even debatable.
Their vision was for citizen leaders to live at home and visit Washington; not for them to live in D.C. and visit home.
Your first sentence in post #79 was from my prior post to you. Those are my words. You didn’t put quotes around them. It can cause confusion. Thought I’d point it out. No biggie.
A Essay on Mitt Romney. Its damning.
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.