Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Harriet Is Much Better Than Gary at Keeping Her Brood in Line
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/29/2011 6:54:07 PM PDT by NaturalBornConservative
Try again when you have some HONEST, factual, analysis.
Only problem is 9-9-9 does none of that. So once again your "anlayis" is demonstrated to be ignorant propaganda.
“Only problem is your “article” is based on the propaganda from the Tax Policy Center a far far left wing propaganda outlet paid for by the Urban Institute and the Bookings Institute.”
That’s why as with all things, I proved it for myself. I’m sure that if TPC’s only motiviation was political, that they would want Herman Cain to prevail, because his nomination would destroy the GOP.
So in your opinion was their analysis of Perry’s or Gingrich’s plans on par, or just pulled out of a hat as well?
You article is total crap and that is the nicest thing that can be said about it.
Why is it a problem that ANYBODY gets to keep more of THEIR MONEY???
Regardless of what they do with it, the economy benefits far more than if Government takes it from them.
I’ve been involved in the fundamental tax reform movement for a couple of decades. The sine qua non for real reform has always been the complete elimination of income and corporate taxes. Of course, the Cain plan does not do that. It places a consumption tax on top of an income tax on top of a corporate tax.
A total political non-starter, all across the political spectrum.
Just as the Gingrich-Armey flat income tax proposals were always political non-starters.
And, I believe that to be intentional. We’re dealing with people who are looking for nothing more than campaign fodder, not real fixes to what is destroying our country, based in principle.
You lost me at Example 1.
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that a married couple earning $1,000,000 in wages has ONLY standard deduction and personal exemptions. So you have started with a false (high) premise about how much they currently pay in taxes so that you can argue that they will pay less taxes under Cain.
And you say it like it’s a bad thing for people to be able to keep more of what they earn.
I don’t know you personally, or your posting history, so I’m not going to criticize you personally. However, I will say that the argument that it’s a bad thing for someone to retain more of their wages is also the opinion of OWS.
I have no concerns about the 70,000 page current tax monstrosity. We shouldn’t even consider something else.
Maybe it will be something other than 999 but whatever it will be way better than hope and change.
If I made a million bucks and had to pay that much tax I would fire my accountant.
All your incorrect facts aside, when you call a plan a “sham” it’s an attack. You are basically calling the proponents of the plan liars. Don’t whine when you get called names back.
(Oct 18, 2011) - T11-0374 - Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” Tax Reform Plan; Baseline: Current Policy; Fully Phased in Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Level
http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3221
I prove things in my own way, and some people just talk. You can plug in as much in deductions as you want. So give the couple in example 1 itemized deductions of 697,265 on 1,000,000 of wages and you might be on par, but then there’s a little thing called the Alternative Minimum Tax. But if you look at the actual tax statistics there is still a wide disparity no matter how you look at it. What if they made 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 instead of a million? When you’re in a 35% bracket, all the revenue lost above deductions is not recovered by a 9% sales tax.
***I’ve been involved in the fundamental tax reform movement for a couple of decades. The sine qua non for real reform has always been the complete elimination of income and corporate taxes. Of course, the Cain plan does not do that. [It places a consumption tax on top of an income tax on top of a corporate tax.
A total political non-starter, all across the political spectrum.
Just as the Gingrich-Armey flat income tax proposals were always political non-starters.
And, I believe that to be intentional. We’re dealing with people who are looking for nothing more than campaign fodder, not real fixes to what is destroying our country, based in principle.]***
I know that’s right EV! So where’s my next president?
[All your incorrect facts aside, when you call a plan a “sham” it’s an attack. You are basically calling the proponents of the plan liars. Don’t whine when you get called names back.]
The only problem is that I debated the facts and no one has refuted them. Simply stating that my facts are incorrect without providing a basis as to why, or providing more correct facts, is not an argument. Call me what you want. A sham is something that purports to be something that it’s not. And telling people they are getting a tax cut, when they are in fact getting a tax hike, is a sham.
I didn’t call anyone a liar. I simply said, ‘here is your plan, this is what you say it will do, and this is what it will do under conservative assumptions’. I also will not stoop to your level of personal attacks. If you want to tear the GOP apart, then have at it. We’ll see where it leads.
Johnnie, no need to argue with this charlatan. His business is tax accounting and he has said he has no problem understanding the current tax code and believes it should stay just as it is.
Just another bean counter who based his business model on the elites and their so sacred progressive tax code of 70,000 pages and almost 1 million words.
We are going to subject this leech to the same dilemma faced by the buggy whip tanners and the wooden wagon wheel blacksmiths at the turn of the last century.
But you're arguing that it's better, right, and important that we tax the wealthy more so that we can sustain this Ponzi scheme of a Government that is top-heavy. You're arguing that we need to ensure that we have the revenue coming into the Government. For what? What do you want that money to be spent on?
Why should a couple who makes $1 million have to send 35% of that to the Government? Do they really use $350,000 worth of services from the Government?
I would rather cut spending in massive ways, and cut taxes so that they are fair to everyone. Webster's definition of fair, not Washington's definition, or OWS’s definition.
Why are you wanting to the Government to get more revenue at all? They have PLENTY of revenue. They waste it on ridiculous programs. $500,000 to study the viscosity of ketchup? Really?? They need to cut spending, massively, and cut taxes too.
Attention, this is a Perrywinkle Perrybot infected thread, ther is nothing logical about their rantings.
Nothing to see here except more insane rantings against anything not Mr. “hairdo”
“...they would want Herman Cain to prevail, because his nomination would destroy the GOP.”
I want to see you back THAT specious claim.
I tend to think of a Cain nomination as a first step in *reforming* the GOP.
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.