RE: Can someone explain to me how 9-9-9 does NOT become 10-10-10 in the next congress, or then 18-18-18 under the next D admin?
_____________________
We get this question in almost every thread relating to tax reform. The answer is the same — ANY TAX REFORM PROPOSAL WILL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM, so if the starting point of any discussion is let’s not do it because some future Congress will turn it into a steaming pile of dung, we might as well not propose anythimg.
Herman Cain verbally stated that together with his 9-9-9 proposal is a requirement that 2/3 of Congress will be needed to increase any of the taxes.
If that isn’t enough, then it isn’t enough for any tax reform proposal.
In the end, only the people’s vigilance will stop Congress from abusing its power. If we aren’t vigilant, we deserve the government we get.
I didn't know that, but I don't see how that could possibly happen under our system. There is no precedence to require a 2/3rds vote of congress to make a law. They need simple majorities. You can't pass a law that changes the rules of a future house or senate when considering new laws.
If you could, I can guarantee you the Obamacare law would have required a 2/3rds vote for repeal.
The reason the 9-9-9 plan poses a SPECIAL risk for increased taxation is that it introduces a NEW tax that has never existed. It is very hard to do that, and it is likely he'll never be able to do it either. But if he succeeded, it will be much easier to change the tax rates than it was to get the new tax put in place to begin with.
The FairTax proposal, which I oppose for technical reasons, assumed the repeal of the income tax amendment, which would have prevented anybody from re-imposing it.
Look around -- you know a millionare's tax is coming. We will lose that battle, one way or another. The media and democrats have worked together to set up the perfect storm to make sure the "patriotic" and "country-loving" "rich people" join the "rest of us" in "sacrificing" for the country.
Because apparently the government cutting spending is actually a SACRIFICE the poor people are making for the rest of us. And frankly, none of our presidential candidates are really fighting that, because they are too busy ganging up on Rick Perry for Gardasil and a 2001 unanimously-approved Texas law on in-state tuition.
Every single one of our candidates SHOULD be out there pointing out the absurdity of this "shared sacrifice" argument.