Replies

The reason the tax wouldn't apply to a house or car is Cain is making the assumption that they are buying a used house or car not brand new and under the Fair Tax which his 9-9-9 plan is a hybrid of the tax is only paid on new purchases.

I don't know if his plan includes the prebate that the fair tax included to avoid this charge.

The reason the tax wouldn't apply to a house or car is Cain is making the assumption that they are buying a used house or car not brand new and under the Fair Tax which his 9-9-9 plan is a hybrid of the tax is only paid on new purchases.

So what will that do to the new car industry and the housing industry? It'll drive up the value of existing houses and used cars, and drop demand for new cars and new houses. What does that do to Ford and Honda and homebuilders?

So if that’s true, that means you would pay sales tax on a new house or new car...that seems like an economy killer.

“prebates”

The so-called FairTax is a joke. Because of the prebate checks.

People here will nitpick and naysay based on whatever details of ANY plan that ANY body proposes. That’s fine. It’s still pre-season.

But Cain should be thunderously applauded for attempting to introduce OBJECTIVE fairness to the national tax debate. The soul of this great nation has already suffered immeasurably from the SUBJECTIVE fairness of progressive taxation and politically generous exemption.

Progressivity is, by definition, a corruption of objective fairness.

Obama is a superhero to the Left because he promises to muster strength to remove the concrete blindfold from the tradition of American Justice. Legally and economically speaking.

We can (and should) debate the details, but Cain already deserves regard as a great American Re-Founder for having the guts to put the blindfold back where the Founders originally tied it.

Which candidate has done the best job of putting the fat, lazy and thoroughly un-American protesters in their place?

Cain.

“General Welfare” does not, AT ALL, mean what libs assume. It means general in the sense that no specific groups, classes or individuals should either distinctly benefit or suffer from federal legislation. It is the Constitution’s recognition of objectivity as the ruling principle of the document. There is tragic irony in it’s modern redefinition.