Generally, I like Cain. But this 9-9-9 thing bugs me.
It’s not the flat-rate personal or corporate income taxes.
And it’s not the idea of a sales tax.
It’s the idea of allowing the federal government to impose a tax in intra-state sales. I can’t see anything in the Constitution that authorizes it.
That is a good point.
“Generally, I like Cain. But this 9-9-9 thing bugs me.”
Me,too. That’s what I was saying on the pro-Cain threads yesterday, but whenever you point out that the focus should be on reducing the Federal Government instead of authorizing higher taxation, you get flamed by those have decided Cain is their leader.
Good point, another chink in the armor of federalism this could be.
The more you consume, then the more tax you pay. Seems logical and fair to me.
The great thing is YOU control how much you are taxed based on consumption.
Plus I love how G.E., Google, etc will not be able to hide from taxes. Oh and don't forget all the Illegals that will FINALLY be contributing to our tax code instead of leaching off of it.
Do you mean that you don’t pay the feds anything when you purchase a gallon of gas? What state do you live in...I’ll be packin’ whilst I wait for your reply;-)>
Bingo, that pesky constitution thing.
Article I, Section 8. Excise taxes (which the sales tax falls under) can be imposed by the Congress. They just must be uniform (no federal 10% sales tax in CA and 5% sales tax in FL). Cain's 'empowerment zone' proposals contravene this, and wouldn't be Constitutional without an amendment.
George Washington faced down a rebellion over Congress' power to collect such taxes.
If you buy Jack Dainiels or George Dickel in Tennessee, you pay a FEDERAL EXISE TAX.
If you buy Cooper Tires in Louisiana, you pay a FEDERAL EXISE TAX.
Yes, the authority is there and has been since the Whiskey Rebellion.
I like Cain except for 2 things - his stupid 9-9-9 plan (he won’t shut up about) and his defensiveness. I certainly like most of his conservative ideas. After some thought I’ve come to the conclusion that his 9-9-9 plan will never go anywhere anyway so why let that keep me from supporting him?
The defensiveness is a personal style thing I don’t like. His stump speeches were developed when he was 4% in the polls or whatever. He keeps talking about “they” vs him a lot. He is a front-runner now and needs to talk like one.
Also when confronted with past quotes he gets defensive to the point of hostility and at times has denied things he has clearly said. I will give him more time to see if he straightens this out or not.
It’s the idea of allowing the federal government to impose a tax in intra-state sales. I can’t see anything in the Constitution that authorizes it.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Your comment caused me to take a quick look at the Constitution to see if there were any prohibition on taxing intra-state sales, and it appears there is such a prohibition.
I don't think this is a deal-breaker for the 9-9-9 plan, but it will certainly need to be factored into how the sales tax portion is adjudicated and collected.