Posted on 10/08/2011 4:09:26 PM PDT by Clairity
The real political defect of the Cain plan is that it imposes a new national sales tax while maintaining the income tax. Mr. Cain's rates are seductively low, but the current income tax was introduced in 1913 with a top rate of 7% amid promises that it would never exceed 10%. By 1918 the top rate was 77%.
Part of Mr. Cain's appeal is his willingness to challenge political convention, and he certainly has with his tax proposal. Voters like that he isn't a lifetime politician but a successful business owner who has met a payroll and created jobs. But his endorsement of a sales tax on top of the income tax is a political gamble that would eventually finance an even larger entitlement state. Better to reform the devil we know—the income tax—than to introduce another devil and end up with ever-rising rates of both.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
But in the actual and real world, it would take more than decades to revamp, reverse and correct the current Government Welfare, Social Security, entitlement based tax system.
I would love to snap my finger and have it all go away and be replaced by a simple “Fair Tax” where EVERYBODY contributes.
Now, back to the real World; Where there are Socialists/ Marxists Democrats and Status Quot Republicans, who share a majority, are in full control and who will never hear a word we are trying to get tucked between their ears.
There are also State Governments, with Income taxes, sales taxes, VAT taxes, Property, etc,,,. Which by nature alone will be the biggest obstacle to get in the way of one simple form of a “Fair” Federal Tax.
Cain is trying to sell us on the idea that if we vote for him, he will somehow go in and change things instantly and make the World all good again. Here again, that is just Cain's dire inexperience talking, especially after reality gets in the way, as will a near majority of Democrats that have an entirely different agenda and completely different set of ideas than we do.
The abolition of the payroll tax will affect the price of goods and services, oftentimes pushing prices downward.
When corporations pay a lower tax rate, as they would here, they don’t have to charge as much for their stuff. Since they will always try to get more market share by lowering prices, if they can, this increased ability for price competition would also push prices downward.
One thing that must be remembered here is this is not taking 9% and tacking it onto the consumer market as it is now. That 9% will be operating in a market where other forces will work to bring prices down, most likely on basic commodities most.
For example, if a cup of coffee costs $1.00 now and a 9% sales tax were added, it would cost $1.09.
But if the cost of that cup of coffee dropped to 75 cents and a 9% sales tax were added, it would cost 82 cents, still less than $1.09.
Oh, stop whining. Pointing out facts is one thing we do around FR. You should know that by now. I replied to your belief that the US military is not part of the federal government by pointing out the specific section of the Constitution that states it is part of the federal government. That is a huge problem for you. I’d like to take you seriously, but I can’t. You obviously haven’t read the Constitution. That is your main problem. Now you want to talk taxes? LOL
Or perhaps because it can reduce demand for goods. If 9% goes to the government then that's 9% you don't spend on goods and services in the private sector. Cut demand by 9% and what does that do for business?
All taxes reduce potential spending in the private sector. We are going to pay taxes. It's just a question of at what rate and how will they be assessed.
If this 9% sales tax represents an effective drop in consumer's overall tax burden, then consumers will have MORE to spend in the private sector.
And, again, Libs do not want the federal government dependent upon this kind of tax revenue precisely because it gives too much power to the consumer to directly and efficiently pull back on the money flow when they disagree with how the government is using their money.
I doubt he feels it will be that easy. At least he has a simple, workable, explainable plan. That's something the other candidates don't have. 999 would be a good first step.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)
I didn't say the military wasn't part of the government. I said it wasn't the government.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)
Yes!
Except for the dictator part, indeed there are some parallels.
Point being: there are rare times in history when a man who would otherwise be considered an unlikely leader (POTUS) is, in fact, exactly the man for the times.
If this is true then this forum has finally jumped the tracks to support anything like this.
And what about folks like me who already pay nearly half mil a year in local and state
If I lose that right to count that as a business expense or depreciation and interest deduction...I will go broke immediately..it will be over...there will be no amortization of debt for business owners who actually own stuff like buildings, land and capital improvements
As opposed to what? The hideous system we have now?
I LOVE the 9-9-9 plan
Agreed. And I think we know who that man is right now.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)
I did the math on an average family here. Unless you can point out where I'm nmaking a mistake, then for most of the people who pay no income tax but instead pay only FICA, the 9-9-9 plan will more than double their taxes. If you're one of those then why would you support a candidate who promises to do that?
All taxes reduce potential spending in the private sector. We are going to pay taxes. It's just a question of at what rate and how will they be assessed.
That's correct. Can we agree that the more you pay in taxes then the less you have to spend on other things? And that if your taxes go up by X% then your consumption of other goods will almost certainly go down by that same percentage?
If this 9% sales tax represents an effective drop in consumer's overall tax burden, then consumers will have MORE to spend in the private sector.
But it doesn't. It represents an increase in most cases.
And, again, Libs do not want the federal government dependent upon this kind of tax revenue precisely because it gives too much power to the consumer to directly and efficiently pull back on the money flow when they disagree with how the government is using their money.
I can't speak of what Libs like or don't like. I just know what I like. And I would not like to see my taxes go up considerably. And if I feel that way then why should any other rational person feel any different? So if we can agree on that then how can Cain win on a plan that would raise taxes for most people?
Is there a problem with that?
Okay, series.
This analysis buys into the myth that lowering taxes does not raise revenues.
But lowering taxes does raise revenues. That is all. See the Laffer Curve.
It's much more complicated than taking the tax rates under the present system and the tax rate under 999 and slapping them upon a static "income" number.
When tax rates are lower, as they would be under 999, incomes are higher, even if the entity (individual or corporation) earned exactly the same as under the previous system.
If less income is sheltered, as it would be under 999, again, incomes are higher.
Tax rates affect behavior, which affects income subject to tax.
IOW, we can't have this discussion without recognizing that (1) the definition of "income" subject to tax will change under 999; (2) the amount of revenue will increase when taxes are lowered because, no matter how counterintuitive it is, that is, in fact, just the way it is.
But it's not accurate that "Cain wants to add a new tax."
Cain is proposing completely restructing the present tax code. If you replace one thing that has a total tax burden of (I'm just going to pick numbers here) 40% on the real economy as a whole and replace it with another thing that a total tax burden on the economy of 9%, isn't that a good thing?
Not to mention that it helps us very much along the road to more Constitutionally limited government.
The more I think about it the more I find that the expressed longing for a President with "legislative" or "government" or "elected office" experience is frankly ridiculous in the year of our Lord 2012!
Good grief, Obama had (at least on paper) experience as a pol and elected official. So what? He's been the most dangerous bumbler in the White House ever. I'm starting to think he really may get us all killed.
I would ask: how exactly is this vaunted experience as an elected official supposed to help the next POTUS figure out how to FIX THE COMPLETELY SCREWED UP ECONOMY?
Which is more important: knowing something of how to get a bill passed or HAVING THE RIGHT IDEAS TO PUT IN THE BILL?
Can't the former advice be sought out, while isn't the latter a product of WHO the POTUS is and what his worldview and life experiences are?
Even Cain has called his 9-9-9 scheme ‘revenue neutral’. So if we believe Cain his plan will leave us with deficits of between $1 trillion at best and $2 trillion at worst. Yet nowhere on his website does Cain identify the cuts he will make in order to balance the budget. Just vague blathering about ‘making tough decisions’ and ‘nothing off the table’. Well if Cain is the visionary that everyone seems to think he is then he should be able to do better than that.
Cain's 999 tax plan is nothing but a gimmick, a political ploy. Just like his Chilean plan is for SocSec. Cain is pandering to a certain group of voters. Frankly, this is nothing more then a hypothetical exercise anyway. Cain is not going to be the nominee and his gimmicks are headed nowhere.
If you're so certain of that why are you runnin' yer yap? Just like to add to the static level?
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)
28% + 9% is higher than 28%
That is simple math.
I am not voting for 28+9. You can, but it makes no sense. You’ve been sold on higher taxes.
UNTIL they get rid of the income tax that we have, then you better not be adding on any sales tax as an “intermediary” step. They will intermediary themselves into your pocket book and never invite themselves to leave.
Mainly to see you thin skinned varmints go whining and howling into the night. LOL
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.