Don’t be VAT stupid (Cain was AGAINST a National Sales Tax last November)

Herman Cain T.H.E New Voice, Inc. ^ | November 21, 2010 | Herman Cain

[Polybius]

There’s one message from the 2010 elections that many so-called policy makers, political elites and analysts did not hear. Namely, the American people are not as uninformed and stupid as they think we are.

President Obama’s Debt Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force have both floated its ideas for reducing our nation’s runaway national debt. .....

The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.

Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table.

First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. ......

Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. ....

For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, benefits have gone down and they are still on a path of insolvency.

Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside.

A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country.

People are not stupid. Maybe they will hear us in 2012.

[fightinJAG]

But claiming the plan “adds on a new tax” when it certainly does not

Oh, we have a federal sales tax now? NO WE DON’T — IT’S A NEW TAX. To claim otherwise is just spin. Cain’s plan ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY adds on a new tax! I realize that the spin is that the AMOUNT won’t increase, but it’s breathtakingly duplicitous to claim that it’s not a NEW TAX.

Please back off the shouting. I'd like to talk with you without getting a headache. Thanks.

Is a "new" name for an "old" revenue stream a "new" tax?

Just can't agree with you there.

But, okay, if you want to go with semantics rather than substance, I'll agree with you that the NST would be a "new" tax, because we have never used that name for a tax previously, nor have we structured the revenue stream in the same way in the past.

Now, will you agree with me that this "new" tax results in a lower effective tax rate and a lower overall tax burden on the economy than the aggregate effect of the present individual and corporate tax rates, the payroll tax, the death tax and capital gains taxes?

[Mr. K]

Did you miss the point where the 999 plan REPLACES the current income tax?

That means you don;t pay the 15% FICA OR federal taxes.

and no ‘pre-bate’. I though tthe ‘prebate’ was the most horrifying thing about the so-called ‘fair tax’ if it is $3500 this year, i guarntee every semocrap will be running on a platform to make it $4500. then more, then more

Then they will need a 100% tax to pay for the prebate, and their communist takover is done

[CharlesWayneCT]

I haven’t given up on Cain, nor have I joined up with Perry. But I would find it much easier to support Perry than Cain. Perry certainly has the ability to be somewhat reactionary, to go for the big play, to shake things up. But I need to see he can recover from his poor debate performances, and get back the conservatives who I think should love him but don’t.

I am not disturbed by anything in Perry’s record. I don’t see his negatives as particularly relevant to this presidential cycle, and he is solid on my top 10 list of things I care about. I’ll admit I’m not as hard-core anti-illegal as some here, but I want the border secured, and believe Perry is the guy to do it.

Cain is just a big mystery to me. He sounds great, except when he says stuff that jars me, after which he usually apologizes, or says he was kidding, or just changes his opinion overnight with no explanation.

And I’m still concerned about electability, and I’m still thinking Cain’s poll numbers aren’t “real” in that sense. People love him, but haven’t really looked at it from a “voting for President” perspective.

If you asked a different question: “Who would you be comfortable with in the White House”, my answer might be different. I’d be fine with Gingrich, or Santorum, or Perry. I used to think Bachmann, but I’ve soured on her recently. Cain I’d be nervous about, but I think we’d be OK in the end.

Of course, if we could just put someone in the Presidency, I wouldn’t mind Sarah Palin. She’s at the edge of my tolerance for experience, but I don’t really have too many questions about where she stands on things, and I’ve always liked what I’ve seen in her positions.

I don’t know if I’m trying to sour people on Cain or not. I realise that would be the result of my argument, but I’m also trying to see how people counter my arguments, because that is how I learn. Normally I don’t have to make arguments against candidates, because people do that all the time so I can read those arguments and counters. For example, there was no lack of people ready to trash Perry.

And if Palin was still considering a run, I have a feeling we’d have plenty of people taking care of raising negatives about Cain right now — part of the “clearing the field” campaign. But she isn’t, and I feel like Cain was simply the winner in the “musical chairs” game, being in the seat when Palin said she was out.

[Polybius]

Suit yourself.

Objective analysis has nothing to do with "suiting" yourself or anybody else.

For many months, in spite of thousands of "PDS!" arrows, I warned on FR that Sarah Palin's utter lack of attention to the serious logistics of building a campaign war chest and infrastructure meant that Palin would be running either a "tease" or, at best, a "phony campaign" like Newt is running now.

In the end, I was right and most of Free Republic was wrong.

I warned about Palin then and I am warning about Cain now.

While Romney is focused, like a laser, in locking up key GOP donors, Cain is spending the month of October on a national tour of Barnes & Noble book stores. Each man's priorities are obvious.

If you want to throw objective analysis out the window, suit yourself.

"Amateurs talk about strategy and professionals talk about logistics." ..... Omar Bradley

Herman Cain Only Has 'Several Hundred Thousand Dollars' In The Bank .... Compare that to Romney's $14 million or Perry's $18 million

Michael Steele to Herman Cain: Get Off the Book Tour

[Polybius]

Did you miss the point where the 999 plan REPLACES the current income tax?

Did you miss the point in Herman Cain's own article that any lower initial rates will inevitably RISE?

=========================

"For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up,

Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside." ..... Herman Cain

[TigersEye]

It’s a little more than that although a grade school level of English comprehension would suffice to understand the difference. That leaves you out.

[fightinJAG]

I warned on FR that Sarah Palin's utter lack of attention to the serious logistics of building a campaign war chest and infrastructure meant that Palin would be running either a "tease" or, at best, a "phony campaign" like Newt is running now.

The lack of a campaign war chest (really?) and infrastructure, even if true, had zero to do with why Palin didn't run.

[Polybius]

U 3 keep it up ... I concur...bad idea .... For many of us...his plan means more taxes ...... what about where I live with 10 percent sales already?

Well, it means that you had better keep working until you drop. It means that lower income seniors and lower earning families will get taxed out the wazoo to the point that would be economically devastating for them.

($100 Social Security check) - (9% Income Tax) = $90

($90) - (9% State Sales Tax) - (9% National Sales Tax) = $73.80 in Purchasing Power

It means that the Black Market will thrive.

In my case, after three decades of workaholic medical practice, I just retired on my own saving, one year younger than when my own father died.

That means that I was Income Taxed at the top 35% tax rate when I earned my savings and will be Sales Taxed AGAIN at 9% when I spend my savings under 9-9-9.

How does Cain deal with the double-taxation of current savings even though Cain brags that "under my 9-9-9 Plan, everything is only taxed once"?

The current savings in the entire United States of America is a minor detail that Cain's "economic adviser" completely blew off.

All that Cain cared about was a "Bold" plan, any plan, that would generate "Shock Jock" appeal when marketed as a $9.99 Special. ..... Even if the "Bold" Plan went totally against what Cain himself warned about in this article.

=======================

From fan to The Man: How Cleveland's Rich Lowrie claimed a place in Herman Cain's inner circle

That's how Lowrie found himself this summer on a New Hampshire-bound flight with Cain, sketching the tax-reform plan that in recent weeks has become a household name and helped Cain surge to the head of the Republican field.

"I had one question for him," Lowrie said of the chat. "How bold do you want to be?"

Cain, "with his signature smile and booming voice," leaned in and replied: "Bold."

And so, "9-9-9" was born -- a proposal to replace the federal tax code with a flat 9 percent tax on personal income and businesses and a 9 percent national sales tax.

=======================

[fightinJAG]

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

I think asking "who I am comfortable with in the White House?" is a useful question (at least among thinking people; the purely emotional, not so much).

I'm not completely comfortable with a Cain presidency just yet. But the things you bring up about him don't bother me too much. I feel as though I know guys like him and, for whatever reason, the this-and-thats that make you cringe a little don't do that for me.

OTOH, the things that don't bother you about Perry bother me considerably. Although I am not repulsed by his record, as some are, it causes me concern, mostly because I don't see the kind of thinking process and instincts that I think are necessary to success (or at least survival) in the presidency.

Remarkably, as we discuss this here, I realize that I am more concerned about "Washington" eating Perry's lunch than Cain's. To me, Perry seems to be the one who might get comfortable inside his head and then get hugely blindsided by the plotters and intrique that is part and parcel of our system.

I worry about Newt's mecurialness. I even worry that he wouldn't make a good VP, because he (though not maliciously) would not be honorable in subordinating himself to the President, his boss. He would end up freelancing in some way that brought the administration into disarray or worse. That said, I haven't ruled him out. His brilliance might be worth the risk (in the VP slot).

I don't understand why Santorum is not getting more traction. He's like Newt without the baggage. But it is what it is. He's not going to be the nominee.

If it were between Palin and Cain, in the end, I'd have to go with Cain. I don't think Palin's governorship, though very valuable experience, is enough to tip the scales for me in this hypothetical matchup.

I apologize if I've posted this link to you before, but this is an important piece on the issue you bring up as to whether Cain's polling is "real," whether his surge demonstrates any of substance and so on. It says everything I've thought about this situation, and makes every observation I've had, only better:

Cain, not Romney, is now the favorite to win the GOP nomination."

Another analysis that pertains, I think, is from that business book about "swimming with the sharks." It's the tactic of a competitor knowing that the "frontrunner" guy has weaknesses and/or will trip up. The competitor just keeps swimming, so to speak, until the inevitable happens (dramatically or subtly), then the competitor emerges as the real frontrunner.

Oh, and I think there are plenty of anti-Cain posts out there. It's just that many of them don't have a lot of substance.

[sickoflibs]

Cain was for a National Sales tax last year and strongly against a VAT at the same time, JUST LIKE NOW, NO CHANGE. see : #182

The Federal gasoline tax has not gone up in 18 years since Clinton so dont buy the argument that we cant reform the tax structure.

Perry doesnt want to raise the sales tax on illegals, that is why the Perry-dactus are so dead set against it. .

[TigersEye]

I think Mr. K was being sarcastic. How else do you deal with grade school level attempts at spin?

[sickoflibs]

RE :"I think Mr. K was being sarcastic. How else do you deal with grade school level attempts at spin?"

I got that joke. I just want to make clear that this a non-issue completely fabricated, the perry-dacyls is still repeating it. Perry would just HATE to tax illegals his voter base.

[Polybius]

I warned on FR that Sarah Palin's utter lack of attention to the serious logistics of building a campaign war chest and infrastructure meant that Palin would be running either a "tease" or, at best, a "phony campaign" like Newt is running now.

The lack of a campaign war chest (really?) and infrastructure, even if true, had zero to do with why Palin didn't run.

Yes, really.

Sarah Palin would have shown up for a tank battle armed with a Swiss Army knife.

This is what a "serious" campaign looks like:

Hillary Clinton, even with the financial resources of the entire Clinton Machine and even after loaning her own campaign $11 million, still ended up $22.5 million in debt by the end of the Primaries. Total War Chest spent by Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Primaries: $217 Million.

SarahPAC's cash on hand in July, 2011: $1.4 Million

Hillary spent 155 times more money than Sarah Palin had in July 2011.

This is what a "phony" campaign looks like:

All Newt Gingrich has to do to run his current "phony campaign" is get on Orbitz and buy a cheap round trip plane ticket to the next debate and then get on Price Line to get cheap hotel room for one night. Rinse and repeat every two weeks.

Without any "war chest" worth mentioning, the chances of surviving the "Campaign Ad Wars" are Zero, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

Newt Gingrich loses nothing by running, building up his Brand and then dropping out. Nobody expects Newt to actually win.

Sarah Palin's mystique, however, was wrapped up in the illusion among her supporters that she WOULD win.

Without a war chest, Sarah Palin's option were:

A.) Declare a candidacy then drop out or get beaten like a rented mule.

B.) Hint, for as long as possible, about declaring and then decline with her supporters still believing that she WOULD have won if only she HAD declared.

For Sarah Palin, the logical choice is B.

Better to be a certain winner ("if only she had run") in the imagination of her supporters than a proven loser like McCain, Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Bob Dole, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc., that actually ran and actually lost.

"If you took all the girls I knew when I was single, and brought them all together for one night, I know they'd never match my sweet imagination" ..... Paul Simon, Kodachrome

[fightinJAG]

Thank you.

[sickoflibs]

RE:"Thank you."

There was another thread the other day claiming 9-9-9 will raise our taxes. One poster on it kept pinging "This proves Cain is unelectable/not ready". Right there that should of set off alarm bells. So I pointed out that the current crop is a bunch of duds, and she says "Perry can beat Obama unlike the others" on the attack Cain thread.

With the Grizzly babe finally giving the bad news and Cain moving up in polls all Perry sights are on Cain.

There are things to question in 999, but these charges are just made up.

Note the liberals hate 999 too.

[Marine_Uncle]

As Herman said, "First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. ......"
That kind of talk is more production IMHO, then having them all battle over who might have the best tax reduction plan.
If Congress cannot cooperate with the executive branch and vice-verse to create sane federal budgets, then the tax issues are of a secondary nature. As we are painfully aware, we already borrow 40 cents plus for each dollar spent. It is all madness. Each tax proposal set forth always has negative aspects to it. Of course I guess it is only fair to say the same goes for spending reductions.

[Marine_Uncle]

I believe it is fair to say the based on what I so far read into the 999 proposal, a lot of low fixed income folks are among those that will take the biggest hit.
Grandmas and grandpas making say under 10K most likely do not have to fill out a federal tax form, if they are not making any money of significance on taxable pension plans, hardly any say interest dividends on savings accounts. Many hardly make ends meet. So if their going to get taxed on their Social Security benefit, as well as eventual increase in the auto-deduction for medicare/medicaid, they are going to get hit pretty bad.
As for those a little higher up on the Social Security benefits and perhaps with a pension, that currently hardly pay anything. Well they are going to end up paying more. So many people that are simply to old for work at this point and have been spared quite a bit, within the low end folks will pay the price. They can't try to pick up some form of income to offset the new "tax expense" they are going to experience.
I don't believe what I have written is in-accurate. And if it turns out it is I will be among the first to state I was being miss-informed.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Perry hasn’t made the Fairtax part of his platform, but he did speak well of it in his book “Fed Up”. I don’t like the FairTax myself.

[reasonisfaith]

“For many of us...his plan means more taxes”

You know what that’s called, boy? It’s called relativism. If someone believes it, it must be true. Doesn’t work, though.

A replacement tax means it replaces the old tax. Your ten percent is wiped off the table, and then the nine percent is set down in its place.

[sickoflibs]

I expect a flat tax to pass when the Ryan plan gets passed.

Pretty much every present in Obama’s ‘jobs’ bill polls popular when asked about it specifically including a millionaires tax. Reid will now make every Senate Republican vote on each item separately. POTUS runs are always the contest for who can promise to be the biggest Santa. Tax cuts, new programs, tax credits and it always will pay for itself, and it was always earned, regardless of party that sells it. It will be interesting to see how Cain tries to sell 9-9-9 with Democrats and Republicans both going after it.

I always thought federal income taxing SS benefits was a scam, just another way to spend the FICA taxes on other stuff while masking it. They just should just be honest that they are stealing it, its similar to the SS trust fund.