Posted on 10/18/2011 4:37:49 PM PDT by kristinn
Broadcast on: CNN
Broadcast time: 8pm EDT/5pm PDT
The Candidates:
Michele Bachmann
Bachmann is serving her 3rd full term in the U.S. House. Founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, worked as a tax attorney, and was a foster mother for 23 teenagers. She is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Herman Cain
Cain is the former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He lost the Georgia Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat in 2004. He was recently the host of Atlanta-based radio show.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich served as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He represented Georgia's 6th congressional district as a Republican member from 1979 to 1999. He has a PhD in modern European history.
Ron Paul
Paul is serving his 11th full term in the U.S. House. He’s an ob-gyn and was Libertarian nominee for president in 1988. He unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for president in 2008
Rick Perry
Perry is the three term governor of Texas, from 2000 to current. He is a retired Air Force captain for former farmer. He has a degree in animal science.
Mitt Romney
Romney was governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007) and former CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. He unsuccessfully sought the Republican 2008 nomination for president. He has an MBA (Harvard) and JD (Harvard Law).
Rick Santorum
Santorum served two terms in the U.S. House and two terms in the U.S. Senate. He became the Senate's third-ranking Republican in 2001. He was defeated for reelection in 2006.
He definitely said it but I think it was a slip. Hostages were being discussed, and he just didn’t think of the right word fast enough.
At risk of posting another link or having an observation.
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12310500
To baptise people into a faith not their own after they are deceased sort of strips them of their choice. Then again, I think YHWH is quite capable of knowing what shenanigans went on and taking care of things in due time. jmo
Thank you for the response, and I’m not sure that 9% tax would apply to a home. While it probably looked to others like I was saying it definitely would, I was merely airing a thought on the subject.
In truth, I’m not exactly sure how the 999 would play out across the board. The VAT charge is one that I think folks could ponder rationally. When you consider that these entities all pay taxes at each level now, it becomes harder to claim Cain’s plan would be worse. As you state, businesses would wind up paying less than they do today.
Cain is definitely my guy now also. I had hoped he would kick in early on, and now that he is, it’s rather amazing to me. My favorite candidates usually languish. IMO, we have seen a total flip since the Tea Party folks have become active.
The media is perplexed how to destroy him. I don’t think the public is listening to them. At least the public that would be supportive of a more Conservative candidate sure isn’t. The wingbat Left probably is swallowing every word of it.
They never gave Admiral Stockdale a chance. Never heard much out of Perot either after he dropped out.
By the way, I will never forget traveling by car with family back in the 50s. We bought gas for $0.10 cents a gallon, and got triple stamps, can’t remember if it was blue or green stamps. My grandmother was in 7th heaven about it...
Funny thing... As a kid in California, I purchases a drill with green stamps back in the 70s. I’ve been using that thing ever since. Works great.
Good points about Gingrich. I guess he won my heart that day in 1994 when the contenders for Congress stood on the Capitol steps and told us to send them home if they didn’t stick to the Contract with America.
They did accomplish many of those things, too. That was, in a sense, the original tea party.
Gingrich has it in him to do great things. He understands the process. I have more confidence in him than I do in newbies to the game.
Still, good points.
Of course, or else there'd be no profit. But as I understand it, Herman's plan allows the next company in the chain to deduct the purchase price from the tax, thus effectively taxing only the markup to the next company in the chain. If true, this would amount to a single tax for the finished item, not a multiple or "value-added" tax.
You may want to take into consideration the insult to others, the Jews for example of seeing their dead treated with such disrespect. They see that "baptism for the dead" as total arrogance on the part of the mormon church.
I meant that the 9 percent tax is included in the cost so that the manufacturer or whatever is not really paying the tax. The price to the next guy is then 9 percent higher before the 9 percent tax is even considered. Then the profit of the first guy is taxed 9 percent, but it is already on a falsely inflated price.
Then the next guy does the same thing.
Several other people have said this too. We all know increases are passed on to the consumer in a covert way. This principle would operate all along the chain, and would be compounded, with each hidden 9 percent being added to the cost of the next guy.
It’s something like rent control’s hidden cost to the tenant: Every two years you pay an increase in your rent, based on the previous rent, which includes all the other increases. It’s like compound interest on a savings account but in reverse.
The retail consumer gets scrooed the worst.
Another thing I wanted to say about 999: When Cain says it would only apply to used items, I have to laugh. What low-income person ever buys anything used? A used cellphone? A used TV? Used Nikes? They always want the newest and best, which I think is not a bad thing, unless they are cheating in some way to be able to afford these items.
He’s thinking of our parents and grandparents, who made do with secondhand stuff while they worked hard and socked away as much as they could to improve their lives and those of their children.
At one juncture when I signed a new cellphone contract, the store offered me a better phone than the one that came with the contract. I asked why he would do this. He said, “It’s a used phone. The kids are all upgrading to camera phones.”
It's almost as if some can't see how you can genuinely love a homosexual or lesbian in Christ as one you befriend, yet still be solidly against the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle.
Or you can be against your nextdoor neighbors' heterosexual cohabitation arrangement -- if for at least the reason that you want to send a message to your children not to follow suit -- yet still extend love toward them.
Why does opposing homosexuality in personal relationships + opposing homosexual advocacy in the workplace & politically = some sort of "hate" or animosity or a "deal killer" in relating to them?
After all, we oppose the sin in our own lives -- yet don't engage in self-hate -- recognizing the value of self-esteem.
The same is true of cultic "ISMS": We oppose the heresy and falsehood and counterfeit nature of the belief system; yet still embrace/love the person holding to that system. For people adhering to that system, they are at various levels of identification with it. One of our goals is to gradually help them replace falsehoods/deceit with truth; the light expels the darkness.
The President has to deal with foreign dignitaries. It would be nice if he could string two sentences together coherently.
You described a VAT tax, our tax is to the final buyer the customer. Net profit is taxed as ordinary income or capitol gains.
If I produce a product, I do not charge a sales tax to the buyer (unless they are the end of the line), if they modify it they do not add tax to the buyer of the modified product, it is the final consumer who pays.
(OK, there may be portions of any given item produced that is taxed but it is small. An example in my own case, I was an electronic drafter, I was required to charge a 4% tax on the paper I drew on but nothing else)
What are Inmans? I’ve seen the word used a couple of times in this thread.
That's because back then they made things to last. Then they realized if they didn't make them to last they could sell more, more frequently.
But it sounds like that until you understand the specification is for final "end user" retail point of sale only. That rules out the VAT.
It is arrogance. I have faith that YHWH will deal with it.
A few people get what I’m talking about. I guess not all. I worked in corporations and I know what they do.
COSTS (apples) are of course passed on in the form of price markup, by the upstream supplier to the next one downstream. Left to work its magic, free market competition incentivizes innovation and improvement to drive down costs and prices thus gaining more market share. There's always a pressure to push costs and prices down in freely competitive market. So the market itself, free from government interference excepting preventing illegal cartels and monopolies, deals effectively with costs and prices.
PURCHASE PRICES (oranges) are what the tax should be based on. I think this problem you speak of is easily solved by taxing the PURCHASE PRICE, not the costs, which are hard to discern and can be "hidden." Taxing the marked-up SALES price to the next customer down in the supply-chain stream seems pretty straightforward. By subtracting from the tax the PURCHASE price from the supplier upstream, it looks like effectively a single tax for the end item.
Ok, I guess I don’t either. I have worked retail, had my own business and worked as an independent contractor. there never have been taxes on each area of the product, only the end of the line.
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.