Replies

Nominating a man whose central plan is raising the taxes on over half the population is not the way to do it. People aren't stupid, even the poor and middle-income. Why should they vote for someone who is going to cost them money?

Wait. I'm confused. I thought you just said in your other post that those who are not paying taxes now would vote for the GOP nom.

The vast majority of the people who may pay taxes for the first time in their life is probably not going to vote for the GOP nom anyway. That's my point. That's why I said what you said was really funny.

But the larger point is: So what? That's situation normal. Doesn't matter WHY they won't vote for the GOP, they just won't. It somehow hasn't prevented us from electing Republican presidents in the past.

Now if your point is that there is a large segment of voters who actually WOULD vote GOP *but for* the Cain plan, in your view "raising their taxes," you've got two hurdles to overcome:

1. What's the evidence that the 999 plan increases the overall tax burden on the majority of individuals who are already taxpayers?

2. What's the evidence that the 999 plan will not free up price competition in consumer markets?

If you are claiming the Cain plain "raises taxes on individuals" because it would make people who paid no taxes now pay some, analytically, I don't think that constitutes a "tax increase." The imposition of taxes for the first time is simply not comparable to (claiming there will be) "tax increases" on those individuals who are present taxpayers.

And I don't think it's intellectually honest to claim, essentially and for purposes of argument, that since the 999 plan *imposes* taxes for the first time on people that probably wouldn't vote for Cain or any other Republican anyway, that voters who are taxpayers and whose overall tax burden would be lowered by the 999 plan won't vote for Cain because it *imposes* taxes on those not presently paying taxes.

The fact is that many taxpaying voters will be *motivated* to vote for a plan that broadens the tax base.

Hell's Bells, the parasites have been voting for years to stick it to the producers so as to get more free stuff out of them. You can be sure that producers will vote to make the parasites contribute if they ever have the chance to do so.

So the fact that the 999 plan may "raise" (more accurately: "impose") taxes on some individuals -- BECAUSE THEY WERE PAYING NO TAXES -- is actually a positive, not a negative in terms of voter intensity among present.taxpayers.

Wait. I'm confused. I thought you just said in your other post that those who are not paying taxes now would vote for the GOP nom.

I'm confused as well. Are you saying that the GOP has no attraction for the average working person in the country? That only people making $100K and above are GOP voters? Or are you saying that every person who doesn't pay taxes is a welfare parasite who is locked into the Democrat plantation? If so, do some investigating.

The median household income in this country is $49,500. The average size family is a wife and two kids. Why are you surprised that people like this might vote GOP? Under the current tax law, such a family almost certainly pays no income tax. The 5.65% they pay in FICA is much less than the 9% income tax and 9% sales tax will impose. Why should they support a candidate who wants to double their taxes?

1. What's the evidence that the 999 plan increases the overall tax burden on the majority of individuals who are already taxpayers?

Do the math. For the 47% or so who don't pay income tax, Cain's plan is almost certainly a tax increase. Then those who do pay income tax but don't pay a large enough percentage for that amount plus FICA to exceed the amount a 9% income and 9% sales tax comprise another percentage, certainly at least 3% of taxpayers and likely a much higher percentage than that. Likely most people with an income tax of 13% or less would be in that group. Overall, it would not be inaccurate to say that Cain's plan is a tax increase for most people. Over 50%. Maybe 60% or more.

2. What's the evidence that the 999 plan will not free up price competition in consumer markets?

Because business spending cuts have not cause companies to cut prices in the past. Why should we assume it will happen in the future? If you are claiming the Cain plain "raises taxes on individuals" because it would make people who paid no taxes now pay some, analytically, I don't think that constitutes a "tax increase.

If you are paying 5.65% of your income in federal taxes now and suddenly start paying upwards of 18% of your income in taxes after Cain is in office you would not consider that a 'tax increase'? What would you call it?

The fact is that many taxpaying voters will be *motivated* to vote for a plan that broadens the tax base.

Those whose rates go down? I believe you are correct. Those who see their taxes double? Not so much.

Again, I doubt that those who are trying to raise families and who see their taxes double will agree with you.