Posted on 10/13/2011 5:19:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
If you have a 15% tax and you replace it with a 9% tax, is that “another” tax?
I can’t believe what I am seeing in terms of freepers being totally closed-minded about a discussion about lowering overall tax burdens.
Also, it’s not just the payroll tax (15% for both shares) that goes away. It’s the capital gains tax, the death tax, maybe a few more.
So at least three major taxes are eliminated and replaced with one that, percentage-wise, doesn’t even come close to the ones that were eliminated, and your argument is you don’t want “another tax”?
I agree with you. I was just ruminating on the idea of narrowing the tax so that it couldn’t be avoided or black-marketed.
It is extremely hard to refine gasoline, to transport it, and to safely deliver it to automobiles.
$21 dollars a gallon, though, would prove that energy is more elastic than people might think....horses and buggies, for example.
But, energy would be one of a few items one could focus a sales tax on, so that the black market would have difficulty avoiding it. Fossil fuel, at least, by its very nature requires a controlled distribution.
Good reason to go with the NST instead.
Under the author's proposal, you'd pay higher prices for fuel and those higher fuel prices would also cause you to pay more for goods.
It is a dumb idea so there is no real point in arguing if it is progressive or regressive but my deeming it regressive is because it is not progressive. The increase in electricity cost as a percentage of total income for the “rich” is less than for the not-rich and is thus Regressive. The situation is much the same as a consumption tax on food which is also Regressive.
Arguably, the rich consume more electricity in absolute units but they can only consume so much and that amount usually results in expenditure of a smaller percentage of total income than for the non-rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. The effective tax, not directly levied to the end user but still passed through in direct proportion to the amount of electricity consumed, is regressive in the sense that electricity consumption is generally a larger portion of the income of the less wealthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases... The carbon tax proposed would apply equally to all end user electric rates... not progressive in effective tax rate as in increasing as more electricity is consumed thus the rate is not progresive it is equally proportional to consumption.
Liberals like Progressive Taxes... conservatives don’t.
The 9% is not just “added on” to the real economy as it stands now.
The plan includes several provisions that would put downward pressure on prices and would increase household income (by lowering income taxes).
Don't forget that Cain's plan also eliminates the payroll tax (15% for employee/employer share).
Regardless of how it gets back into the economy, are you against putting payroll tax money back into the private sector?
Do you agree that lowering the overall tax burden on the economy spurs economic growth which would then help all Americans?
A claim is not "bogus" simply because it doesn't apply specifically to your particular situation. The fact is that whether it comes from self-employed or employee+employer shares, under the Cain plan, the 15% payroll tax (again, regardless of whether it's paid in one shot or two) is returned to the economy for private use.
Thank you so very much. What a relief as I’m reading through this thread.
I can’t believe I am seeing conservatives go batshiit over a plan that abolishes the tax code, eliminates the IRS, makes everyone a stakeholder and, oh, lowers, simplifies and makes transparent the overall tax burden on the economy.
Also seeing a lot of “what about me.” Wow.
I’ve been here a long time and this takes the cake.
On the other hand, I can’t believe the GOP finally had someone bold enough to present a big idea such as this one. That’s amazing!
Yes, the actual rate of the employee share of the payroll tax is 7.5%. It is a little lower because of a “tax holiday,” I think.
Of course, that rate could go up — gasp! — even if a plan such as 999 weren’t enacted. And since, under the present system, only the about 50% of us who are paying taxes would be affected by the tax hike, once again we’d have little political power to resist the assault of the parasites on our earnings.
Yes.
People are acting as though 9% would be slapped on prices frozen in time today. Wrong.
By the time businesses were free of the payroll tax and the corporate tax -- coupled with households generally having more disposable income because of a lower tax rate -- you would quickly see these companies getting busy on trying to gain market share and grow sales volume with price decreases.
Anyone can understand that if a business can lower the price of a good and thus spur increases in the volume of sales, it makes money.
That is what would happen in the entire economy. Prices would go down, volume of sales would go up, economic growth would be wonderful.
OMG!!!!! The Cain loopholes are so horrible!!! Please don’t take me out of the loving arms of the present tax code, which reaches to over 5,000 pages with loopholes!!!
First, it is evaluating the impact of reduction in corporate income taxes as a *short-term stimulus* to the economy. That is the not the standard by which we should be evaluating 999. This is about major, fundamental reform, not a gimmicky short-term stimulus.
Secondly, here's the assumption that pervades and perverts this paper's whole analysis:
Further long-term revenue losses, such as those associated with a permanent corporate income tax rate cut,
IOW, this group, whoever they are, start with the assumption that corporate tax rate cuts cause long-term revenue losses. That simply is not correct. Or at the minimum, it's not indisputable.
If you (generic) don't agree with the Laffer Curve (that broadening the tax base and lowering rates always increases revenues), then walk away from the discussion table now. Your analysis has nothing to offer those who do agree with the Laffer Curve and are going to evaluate a proposal, such as 999, against that economic principle.
Thanks for the interesting link.
P.S. I'm sure you heard today that Art Laffer endorsed the 999 plan. That is huge. (Also hugh.)
He was just on FOX news and again said 999 was a great program. But here on FR we have our own pseudo experts who will find fault with any candidate...not from Texas.
That's an interesting conclusion. Could you elaborate on it a little? How is the 999 plan essentially no different from the present system of taxation?
Thanks.
I would absolutely love a tax code that could be jotted down on a cocktail napkin! Bring it on!
Do you really think that in this type of economic environment that corporations would not take steps to increase consumer sales if that were possibly and financially viable?
Of course they would. What that paper you cited was talking about (in 2001) might occur when a corporation was pretty flush with sales, but not when it’s treading water in terms of moving its goods.
A corporation cannot stay alive without earnings. And it can’t keep investors without earnings, either. So its bias will always be toward increasing earnings (sales) if that is lagging.
Also, putting costs savings toward investors still helps the economy. Investors are also consumers.
ping to #273.
Yup. It ain’t rocket surgery.
Amen!
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.