Posted on 10/08/2011 4:09:26 PM PDT by Clairity
The real political defect of the Cain plan is that it imposes a new national sales tax while maintaining the income tax. Mr. Cain's rates are seductively low, but the current income tax was introduced in 1913 with a top rate of 7% amid promises that it would never exceed 10%. By 1918 the top rate was 77%.
Part of Mr. Cain's appeal is his willingness to challenge political convention, and he certainly has with his tax proposal. Voters like that he isn't a lifetime politician but a successful business owner who has met a payroll and created jobs. But his endorsement of a sales tax on top of the income tax is a political gamble that would eventually finance an even larger entitlement state. Better to reform the devil we know—the income tax—than to introduce another devil and end up with ever-rising rates of both.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
>>>>>>He wasn't elected because he was a popular general. He was elected because the United States still had a lot of mopping up to do with the WWII, including figuring out our new military-industrial posture in the world (the U.S. had not been a Superpower until WWII), figuring out occupied Europe and Japan.
You contradict yourself in this one paragraph.
Go away!
If you say so, O wise one...
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)
KMA, O stupid one.
No contradiction there.
Last post to you.
Cheers!
My, my, are we testy? Well, it is late -- too late for anymore of this.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)
A man with business experience like Cain would also be a man for the times....he knows what makes an economy work and no democrat does. Romney is a has been that didn't make it last time, so 20th century. I dont think he knows what makes an economy work either, plus being liberal to the bone, hes definatly a NO Way...
Perrys mouth, insults and calling those that disagree with him (mostly conservatives) "heartless" took him out early...kissing up to La Rasa also was a bad national move. Might have been good for Texas with its large hispanic population, but not in the rest of the country...He needs to stay where he can do his best, as governor or Texas...
So, yes, this is a strawman argument.
No, it isn't. I'm saying because all taxes have a tendency to go up, let's not give the Federals any new forms to add to their list.
Cain wants to add a Federal sales tax. He wants to make a bad situation worse. That's no strawman. It's 9-9-9.
Ceo of major companies and profit producing leader is a lot of experience and is missing in our current socialist president. We need his commonsense to set us right...not another long time politician.
You didn't post the part that explained that the current income tax would be replaced with a 9% flat tax.
If you want to argue against the plan on the basis that the rates might raise in the future, that's not as powerful an argument, but at least it's an honest argument.
If you have to mislead and obfuscate to support your position, is it position worth supporting?
The following analysis by liberals aching to run against it:
– For the income tax portion: In 2007, total Adjusted Gross Income on all income tax returns was $8.7 trillion. Since Cain’s plan would exempt investment income, but would have no other deductions, that brings taxable income down to $7.4 trillion. A flat 9 percent tax would therefore have yielded about $665 billion in income tax revenue.
– For the corporate tax portion: In 2007, there was a total of $1.3 trillion in reported corporate income subject to tax. A flat 9 percent would have yielded $112 billion in revenue.
– For the sales tax portion....generally accepted estimates of the revenue generated from a value-added-tax (see here and here, for example). Those estimates suggest that a broad-based 5 percent tax on goods and services would generate about 2 percent of GDP in revenue. That implies that a 9 percent tax in 2007 would have generated about $500 billion.
– Together, then, the 9-9-9 plan would have generated a bit less than $1.3 trillion in total federal tax revenue. That may sound like a lot, but it’s only 9.2 percent of GDP. In 2007, we actually collected 18.5 percent of GDP in tax revenue. In other words, the 9-9-9 plan would cut federal revenue in half!
Cain has some good ideas but this is not one of them. They need to abolish the income tax in favor of a sales tax.
Who are you for?
Congress can’t change an amendment or repeal one by themselves. 3/4 of the states must also go along with it. If you wish for congress to wait until 3/4 of the states vote to repeal it you will wait a long time.
By the Constitution an amendment can be initiated in Congress by 2/3rds vote of each house.
Poor Cincinatus. He wouldn’t have been popular with some around here at all.
I know. The word you used was “initiated”. That isn’t repealing anything. It’s just the first step. Like I said, if you wish to keep the current tax system in place until the 16th is repealed, someone will be burying you long before repeal happens, if it ever does.
If we get a congress willing to legislate away the income tax, then that same congress will be willing to press a repeal.
And make no mistake: without a repeal of the 16th the income tax is not going anyplace.
Even Cain isn’t trying to get rid of it. And then it will grow..and grow...and grow.
And we’ll ALSO have a sales tax that will grow...and grow...and grow.
It’s what politicians do.
>>A second big concern is his lack of concern over the Federal Reserve.
He has called for big changes at the Fed.
Herman Cain Says ‘Redefine’ the Fed
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11267633/1/herman-cain-says-redefine-the-fed.html
You are right. We should do nothing because in the future politicians will screw it up. Good plan.
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.