Posted on 10/29/2011 6:46:57 AM PDT by Hojczyk
But Cain’s proposal is so very much more important. Perry will nibble around the edges, freeing valuable hours from tax preparation to be available for wealth creation. But Herman Cain would establish America as a beacon for investors, entrepreneurs, inventors, creative business people, and all manner of upwardly mobile, ambitious men and women. He would give the U.S. the lowest personal and corporate tax rates in the world, and the only place where investment earnings are tax free. To trivialize Cain’s big idea by comparing to to Perry’s small one is a vast disservice. Perry would not reduce the amount of money taken in by income and corporate profit taxation. He would just shift it to shorter forms and a nominally lower rate (but not really lower). Taxes would appear to be cut, but the amount we would have to pay would be more or less the same. He even strives to have his program seen as revenue neutral.
Cain would shift about half of our nation’s tax revenues to consumption taxes and away from income taxes. He would vastly reduce the disincentive to earn and encourage savings and investment by taxing spending.
It is not enough to undo the damage Obama has done to the economy by repealing his spending, taxing, health care, and regulatory actions. All that will do is dial us back to the sick economy Bush bequeathed to America. The diseases of the first decade of the 21st Century will still be with us. But Cain’s ideas really get at the heart of the problem — in much the same way that Reagan’s reducing of the top personal tax rate from 70% to 28% solved the stagflation of the 70s.
Cain’s reforms are the real deal. Perry’s are a pale imitation.
(Excerpt) Read more at dickmorris.com ...
but the new business tax coupled with one added to tobacco still counts as the largest tax increase in Texas.
Morris is merely giving his audience what it wants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pW0A9XONEo
Was Karl Rove,Dick Morris Or Frank Luntz Involved In Fox News Poll About Sarah Palin
.....................
According to this guy , well listen to it. Then consider the source.
I agree with him that Rove,Morris, and Luntz have a pony in this show and we know it’s not Perry,Cain,Palin Newt. And that Fox by going along with the poll fixing should not have any of them as commentators.
a few days ago Morris was saying Perry’s plan was great. Guess he got his marching orders from Rove.
I like Cain’s plan. He’s proposing that the millions of illegal immigrants pay taxes just like the rest of us.
Perry and Newt let the illegals slide by without paying anything.
How does Perry’s plan let the illegals slide?
For the first time ever I completely agree with what Dick Morris says here.
Tinkering around the edges WILL NOT fix anything! Never has and never will!
Whenever the issue of raising taxes on the “rich” has arisen, I have attempted to bring the forgotten stakeholder in all such arguments into the discussion-the consumer.
I’m pretty sure most on this forum are aware that the “rich” happen to be our employers, entrepreneurs, and investors, and my contention has been that taxes are an expense to them, such that every good and service produced will have included in its end price the taxes charged. The consumer, in the end, pays for all tax increases, especially those levied on the aforementioned producers. This is a very good argument to use with liberals who advocate increasing taxes on the “rich”.
When looking at the Cain and Perry plans, I can’t help but feel the consumer is being ignored once again.
Perhaps the most important benefit of the Cain plan is that there will definitely be some unknown and in my view unquantifiable reduction in the cost of goods produced and services rendered. This will happen by virtue of the fact that taxes are a cost of producing these goods and services, and these taxes will go down during each step of the production process, on up until the purchase at retail by the consumer.
It’s my bet that this reduction in prices to consumers would be significant. It only takes one player in any given market to decide it will use the new cost structure to increase market share, then all other players will have to follow or perish.
I say the effect is unquantifiable because it will depend on the relative competiveness of any given market. I own a small company and I can assure you my competitors will lower their prices by virtue of any reduction in cost, and I will have to react to remain competitive, as all players in my industry are vying for market share in addition to profit.
Just my two cents.
Indeed ... You’re absolutely right ... Perry’s campaign is just a professional Karl Rove boondogle “smoke and mirrors” circus ...
“Perry and Newt let the illegals slide by without paying anything.”
That is not an intended feature of either man’s plan. It is merely an indication that those plans are adjustments to the old as opposed to Cain’s which is new and decidedly bold.
Which is Dick’s point.
And... regardless how many feet (or at least toes) have trodden his tongue in times past... he is quite correct on his Perry=simplification versus Cain=reform assessment.
No question, flatter is gooder.
But Cain’s shift of emphasis away from income taxes toward consumption taxes is the true freedom-lover’s fancy.
While I understand some conservatives’ groanings about adding another form of taxation, I fail to comprehend why they don’t recognize such natural and common revulsion as the consumption tax’s number one advantage.
All spending should hurt. Everybody.
There is no tax reform without the abolishment of the anti-American IRS.
Perry and even Cain are trepid about true "Reform."
It's like they are looking for less objectionable ways to confiscate wealth, and hiding the pea under a different nut. Any social engineering, picking winners or losers in a tax plan, dooms it to ultimately fail, i.e. Cain's "Empowerment Zones" is nothing but meddling in the market. It is hard for any politician to not put his hands on the market.
I say pick ONE, Make it simple, make it fixed and tied to the GDP, so the politicals can't tamper with it; put the spenders on a diet (balanced budget amendment); and get out of the way.
As Murray Rothbard put it "J.B. Say's policy recommendation was crystal clear and consistent with his analysis and that of the present paper. "The best scheme of [public] finance is, to spend as little as possible; and the best tax is always the lightest."
No matter the form of taxation, it is the spending that is the problem. "Revenue nuetral" It's kinda like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic
Yes.
Perry’s plan leaves the Fedzilla tax code in place indefinitely. (Although any major reform will have a transition period where the old tax code is being phased out, Perry’s plan doesn’t do that. The old tax remains.)
Thus, crony capitalism and corrupt funneling of favors will continue. And may even increase, since the number of tax payers paying under the code will decrease, thus there will be fewer people paying attention than even are now.
Some argue the flat tax will be so great that the old Fedzilla code will die on the vine, a natural death, the result of “choice.”
DON’T BET ON IT.
If history teaches us anything, it is that the Fedzilla code will never die unless it is killed. 999 sticks a knife in it. That is necessary.
The congresscritters and special interests will get even busier entrenching their schemes, payoffs and rip-offs into the code, all the while arguing that it’s continued existence is necessary for “choice” and that “it’s not fair” because they might lose ten cents under the flat tax.
Perry’s flat tax provisions are very generous and provide many jellybeans to present taxpayers.
But overall the plan is a disaster without a clear way to kill the Fedzilla code and a clear way to broaden the tax base, and thus make most Americans have a stake in the system and ALL congresscritters accountable to ALL their constituents if they raise tax rates.
In the end, I don’t think it’s even accurate to say Perry’s plan “simplifies” anything.
It creates a two-tiered system, a hybrid flat tax and Fedzilla code tax system. Thus, it builds in even more bureaucracy and, importantly, stands to greatly increase rather than eliminate compliance costs. Many taxpayers will need to figure their taxes twice to determine which of Perry’s two systems is most advantageous. And what happens if a taxpayer needs to amend a prior tax return? Is there again the choice of using either system?
Agreed.
At the same time, the Perry plan does nothing to broaden the tax base by making more nontaxpayers into taxpayers.
That is the ultimate failure to “simplify.”
If we don’t implement the simple principle that everyone needs to have a stake in the system, the takers will soon outnumber the producers and it won’t matter one whit what the tax rate is at that time.
Once they’re in the majority, the tax rate will quickly be raised — look, Obama would have already raised rates sky-high if he could have gotten away with it. Watch for them to go up to 90% once the gimme train gets rolling. Remember: FDR raised rates to 90%, and for the same reason: to pay for all the free stuff demanded by those not paying taxes.
The tax system and spending are inextricably intertwined.
Reforming the tax system in a way that gives Fedzilla less power and more accountablility, as Cain’s 999 plan does, is an important step in reducing spending.
Bottom line: tax reform and spending cuts work together, they are not mutually exclusive projects.
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.