The point I want to make is, once either one of these additional “solutions” is in place — they will take deep root and we will be stuck with them for ever — and they will grow.
The problem isn’t revenue, the problem is SPENDING!
“The problem isn’t revenue, the problem is SPENDING!”
Definitely.
Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, the majority of Americans prove time and again that they don’t really want lower spending when it comes to their pet cause.
Furthermore, our problem is not just spending which has not yet happened, but also that which already has - aka debt.
If you or I could run the country, no doubt we’d slash federeral discretionary spending by probably 75%.
All that said though, we are left to face “reality”.
Cain’s idea is to change the structure of gvt funding. I agree with many here who point out the slippery slope of a federal sales tax. But that slope is no slipperier than the current corporate and personal income taxe slopes.
You have to admit, 9% corporate and personal taxes would be a monumental boon to business.... I think we’d be drowning in jobs.
Well, I guess I’ll be the first to address the author’s proposal.
Basically, he proposes using a carbon tax (a tax on energy) instead of a sales tax. His main argument for doing so is that oil, etc., is already tightly inventoried, so this would make compliance easier and so on.
He also argues that a national sales tax would be regressive on the poor and hit fixed income households hard. These arguments have been debunked elsewhere, but I’ll save that. My response here is that these same objections (to the extent they are well-founded) apply to the author’s proposal of a carbon tax: higher energy costs (supposedly) hit the poor and fixed income people the hardest.
So, although his “easier compliance” reasoning has some merit, his reasoning on alleged regressiveness of the sales tax oesn’t really fly.
What needs to be analyzed here is what is the principle that Cain is trying to implement by the national sales tax? I see it this way:
1. EVERY American pays the tax.
2. EVERY American pays the same tax rate.
3. EVERY American is empowered to control how much tax he pays by regulating his purchases (beyond necessities). If he sees the need to Go Galt, the FedGov will feel it directly.
4. EVERY politician’s constituents will be affected by ANY tax rate increase. They will not be able to get away with voting to raise taxes on “the other guy.”
5. ANY tax rate hike will be clearly visible to EVERY taxpayer — it would be right there on your receipt for purchase. Congresscritters could no longer raise and raise the tax burden (as they have on the cost of gasoline) without people realizing it and raising hell.
Any tax that accomplishes the implementation of those principles would be a great thing for our country. We would have vastly more accountability over taxation than we do now. And vastly more power to control how much we want to fund FedGov through our purchases.
I agree with you that spending is the issue and must be addressed. However, we still have to fund the FedGov, so the question is how?
The objection that the taxes under 999 "will grow" is not unique!
Taxes can and do "grow" NOW -- except now we have very little power to stop those tax increases. Why? Because so few of us are paying taxes compared to not -- so there are many congresscritters who can get away with voting to raise and raise and raise taxes on "the other guy."
Their constiutents don't care about the tax hikes they vote for -- they're not paying the taxes!
This means that under the present system there are huge wastelands in Congress where there is almost zero accountability for a vote for raising taxes. AGain, because it's someone else constitutents, or only a small percentage of one's district, that will have to pay the piper.
Under 999, EVERY person would pay taxes and pay the same rate. So congresscritters will no longer be able to hide and fob off their spending addiction on someone else's constituents or a small percentage of their own voters (say, the "rich").
If they vote to raise taxes under 999, EVERY SINGLE PERSON will feel it and know it -- and will be able to raise hell about it if they object.
This is vastly more accountability than we have in the system now. It actually empowers us, the people who pay taxes (which would be everybody under 999), to put more pressure than we've ever been able to muster before on Congress to hold rates down.