How about Perry's not-so-flat 'flat tax' joke???
Posted on 11/06/2011 6:11:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
We've steered away from this question for some time now, since so many other current events have seized the news cycle, but Herman Cain had a fairly long history of pontificating on the radio and writing editorial pieces before he began his current run for the presidency. When you generate that much material, you're bound to leave behind a few nuggets for your opponents to find. The case in point today, however, if a fairly glaring one. Highlighted by Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, it’s noted that Mr. Cain may have written passionately about an idea which runs directly against one of the cornerstones of his platform.
I’ve noted before that Herman Cain’s history as a radio talk show host, public speaker, and op-ed columnist was likely to come back and bite him at some point. You simply cannot engage in a long career of speaking off the top of your head on various issues without saying something at some point that is going to annoy someone, or prove to be somewhat embarrassing to you should you ever decide to run for public office…
On November 21st, 2010 in a column at website call The New Voice, Herman Cain wrote this about a proposal made by the Simpson-Bowles Commission
The piece in question seems fairly damning in terms of the political dog and pony show. It has to do with the idea of a national sales tax, which as I’m sure you will recall, is one leg of his 9-9-9 plan.
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…
First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. The Commission claims their goal is to reduce the deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. The task force says its plan would save $6 trillion by 2020. It’s sort of like dueling promises that would never happen, because when has a proposed cut in Washington D.C. ever produced the intended savings over 10 years? Never!
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. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care deform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation “national retail and wholesale” tax.
It goes on from there in great detail, but I’ll leave it to you to read for yourselves. Essentially, it certainly appears to undermine one of the major aspects of his 9-9-9 plan. (Not coincidentally, the same one which his primary opponents, including both Perry and Romney have criticized at great length during the early debates.) In fact, the argument he makes in this editorial regarding the government eventually raising the tax is precisely the point his critics are making today. And this isn’t some dusty, musty piece from ancient history. It’s from last year. This not only calls into question Cain’s own commitment to his tax reform plan, but puts in play a “flip-flop” issue, which one certainly doesn’t need when running against Romney for frontrunner status.
This is only one item from the vast library of recorded radio shows and writings by Herman Cain. The media hasn’t had nearly enough time to dredge through the entire stash since he achieved frontrunner status. For the present they seem content to settle for the sexual harassment and campaign finance allegations which currently dominate the news. If Cain survives those with strong poll numbers, look for more nuggets like this to emerge over time.
You slept through the constitutional convention, Founding Father.
From Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
A national sales tax is an excise tax and only a single rate.
Good job :)
How congress raising taxes could suddenly be called unconstitutional is beyond me.
Cain's criticism of the Simpson-Bowles Commission was correct as it was indeed a disguised VAT. It was also on top of everything we already pay.
Cain's proposal is not VAT disguised as sales tax. It is also not on top of all taxes we already pay.
Yup. The Constitution prohibits enactment of a VAT because its a not a uniform excise tax.
Congress has the constitutional power to impose a uniform federal sales tax. It must be one rate throughout the United States.
The 9% Sales tax is NOT a VAT tax, indeed the rest of the plan works to all but eliminate the already-existing embedded federal taxation on all purchased goods. If anything,it's an Anti-VAT tax.
A VAT tax charges a tax at every level of production, a Sales Tax is placed upon the produced goods at the point of final sale. Radical reduction of existing embedded taxes(15.3% on all labor in all activities related to production, 35% tax on profits) will drop retail prices in a competitive marketplace, with the end result that instead of paying zero% on a $10.00 item, one would pay 9% on the same item priced at $8.50. That's a net gain to the poor, seniors and everyone else.
It’s obvious you have no idea what a VAT tax is. A VAT tax ADDS hidden, embedded taxation at each stage of production, transportation, marketing.
The 9-9-9, taken as a whole, strips out almost all federal embedded taxation on every level of production and uses a visible 9% Sales Tax. The result of taking out embedded taxation is cheaper goods at retail (which are then taxed at 9%).
Would you rather pay zero percent on a dollar, or 9% on $0.85?
And the 9-9-9 is great for exports, while making imports less attractive, relative to domestically produced goods.
I took the time to read the scoring of Cain’s 999 plan on his website. I found this paragraph very interesting:
A business transactions tax would radically broaden the base for businesses. Each business would pay tax on gross receipts less payments to other businesses. Allowing the subtraction of payments for intermediate goods yields the value added by the company. Subtracting investment as well yields a subtraction method value-added tax.
I wish he could be President before he was.
a national sales tax is not an excise tax; that is, if you want to use an original intent interpretation of the constitution.
a new tax is what is unconstitutional; and using original intent a sales tax is not the same as an excise tax. the founding fathers never heard of a general sales tax, thus it is not possible they could have meant that.
No it is not, we already have a federal sales tax, it is called an excise tax, the difference between the two is about the same, as saying the government can not pass a retro active tax. But they have already done that .
OK, I see your tagline speaks for you.
You're right!
I took it that you were asking a serious question as to what the difference is between a VAT and the Fair Tax, aka National Sales Tax (NST).
I answered that question by giving you the necessary research clue to answer that question for yourself as so many of us who wish to engage in a serious debate have.
Your response was “Who ask you?” and I simply pointed out your tag line spoke for you in a sign that any further efforts to discuss anything with you had ended.
Then you made the effort to impugn me by “cleverly” changing it for your snarky return post.
I have no problems with engaging in a debate based off facts and this worn out association of the VAT with the NST cannot happen if petulant individuals like yourself are only interested in smear rather than honest debate which in itself degrades this whole forum. Then again, maybe that is your goal because it most certainly is not to advance either this forum or an honest debate.
(Sniffer Off)
mazda77 to lonestar
OK, I see your tagline speaks for you.
Posted on 11/07/2011 4:30:39 AM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
Monday, November 07, 2011 5:34:47 AM · 73 of 74
lonestar to mazda77
OK, I see your tagline speaks for you.
You're right!
<73 posted on Monday, November 07, 2011 5:34:47 AM by lonestar (mazda 77 is a village idiot.)
************************************************************* Was Herman Cain against a national sales tax before he was for it?
Sunday, November 06, 2011 9:38:23 PM · 54 of 74
sickoflibs to lonestar; justsaynomore; Maelstorm
Cain :” The VAT is also a cowardly tax increase because these same clueless and uninformed voters will easily blame the greedy retailers for raising the prices of their merchandise. And for the 50 percent of the taxpayers who have figured out how not to pay any taxes at all, this administration and Congress will find a way to give them a VAT exemption.........
The answer to reducing the deficit and supercharging the economy is to replace the tax code with the single-rate Fair Tax(National Sales Tax).
VAT: The cowardly tax , THE New Voice, Inc ^ | April 12, 2010 | Herman Cain ( said he is for the Fair/National sales tax instead of a VAT)
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies
Was Herman Cain against a national sales tax before he was for it? Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:36:37 PM · 27 of 74
lonestar to mazda77
Who ask you?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies
Was Herman Cain against a national sales tax before he was for it?
Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:27:49 PM · 15 of 74 mazda77 to lonestar
Nope, read the books to find out how like those of us who made the effort and invested in our own education.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies
Was Herman Cain against a national sales tax before he was for it?
Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:25:37 PM · 12 of 74
Perdogg to lonestar
With a sales tax you pay the tax only for a finished product, a VAT you pay the accumulated value of that good. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies
Was Herman Cain against a national sales tax before he was for it?
Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:19:22 PM · 8 of 74
lonestar to Perdogg
Do you pay both at time of purchase?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies
Cut and paste all you want.
You mean like the (national) gasoline tax that Reagan raised? The founders didn't have cars and instead they had horses; that doesn't make the gas tax unconstitutional anymore than a national sales tax is.
You forgot to get your original that started this whole train wreck.
On M, W, & F he is for it.
On T, T, & S he is against it.
Sunday is his day of rest.
4 posted on Sunday, November 06, 2011 9:14:36 PM by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Funny nobody else commented or was offended by the joke!
I was part of a serious conversation with adults that you weren't part of that I was aware of until you butt in with a stupid remark...you and I were not having a discussion!
And yes, my response to you was clever.
IMO, you are a petty, tattle-tale of a cry-baby!
I have wasted all the time I intend to with you!
How about Perry's not-so-flat 'flat tax' joke???
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.