Posted on 10/17/2011 11:08:56 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
PING
In 2010 Congress got a strong message from we the people, I suspect in 2012 it will be stronger..those in Congress who survive 2012 will probably be running for the Cain Train to hop aboard...and not be left behind. Think sea change.
“Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them. Even if we repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminated the income tax, as some demand in return for establishing a consumption tax, politicians could raise that rate too...any plan could be criticized for what it would look like if someone messed it up. The plan as I’m proposing it is a huge improvement over the status quo.”
This is the most substantive of the criticisms levied against 9-9-9 and he pretends it’s not important by saying essentially that “well, any plan could be twisted by bad politicians.” Not if the income tax were entirely repealed first instead of following this incremental step towards doing that. I don’t understand why Cain thinks 9-9-9 is a step we need to take if he really supports the Fair Tax and limited government. Just saying “we’ll make everything 9,” doesn’t stop the next wave of Rats from saying, “Well, let’s just make it 10, shall we?”
And even without that omission, these responses don’t address the most cutting criticism of Cain: he is not in the least a reflexive, principled conservative. He supported the TARP bailout in the strongest language possible, to the point that he wrote articles extolling the virtues of a bailout. He endorsed ROMNEY in 2008. The man is simply not cut out to be a leader for the right.
I’ll add my bump too.
Palin and Perry endorsed TARP also. Which of the candidates currently running opposed it?
Face it folks. Cain's 999 tax plan is more a political ploy then anything else. Its a gimmick to hoodwink conservatives into supporting his plan and voting for Cain in the primaries.
I like certain aspects of Cain's plan. Personally I support a flat federal income tax and the abolishment of corporate taxes and capgains taxes, or at the very least a significant decrease in both. But even that is not doable in todays political climate.
A return to the Reagan tax rates of 1988 would be a step in the right direction. Better yet, Congress needs to address the biggest issue today. Cut spending!
I think what he is saying is there is nothing stopping politicians from implementing a national sales tax right now. He addresses the rate change issue much the same way but also adds the salient point that those who don’t pay much or any now would not be inclined to see the rate rise.
Santorum??
The 9-9-9 plan makes much of end of payroll taxes offsetting the sales tax, but retirees have already paid payroll taxes and now they pay income tax on their pensions and withdrawals from 401ks. So retirees appear to pay 18% with no offset via the end of payroll taxes. Why is this a fair deal for retirees or workers who have already paid payroll taxes for years? (This is not a statement, I’m looking for an answer.)
Bookmarked! Thanks.
Rush just said that Ron Paul has the right idea with his plan to cut $1+ Trillion in government spending.
I agree with Rush, Cain’s National Sales Tax & Spend Scheme is a terrible idea. What is needed is a cut in government spending, not a New Tax like Cain’s National Sales Tax to give the politicians more of our money to waste.
... He endorsed ROMNEY in 2008....
what were his other options?
“It virtually eliminates the massive compliance costs of the current tax code, and it restrains the size of government.”
I’m pretty sure he’s on board with cuts in spending. He obviously subscribes to a “starve the beast” approach so I’m sure he’ll present his views on cuts if he hasn’t already.
The one two punch of supply side economics is to lower taxes and reduce spending at the same time. Expanding the base and reducing spending both have the same effect of lowering the cost of government.
Yes he supports cuts. Its easier for some to suggest he doesn’t.
I think he is releasing his plans, slowly, bit by bit. This does a couple of things. It allows for discussion on each piece as its released and it helps to prevent information overload. I really do think that he wants people to understand his plans.
I’m hoping that he wins in 2012 and shames Congress into passing it. I know it will go against everything Congress stands for since it will strip their power away. Let’s face it, Congress derives power from concocting these tax loopholes.
I’m in the camp of “it won’t get out of Congress.”
I’ve heard this argument before and as a spouse to a retiree, it interests me a lot, too. I’m voting for him though, because I think this is the best deal for my kids and grandchild.
Also posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793974/posts
If it can’t be passed, it really doesn’t matter if it works, does it??
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.