Posted on 10/17/2011 11:08:56 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
Nice work!
2) If somehow you're able to get around the Constitutional issues, you've got another problem - the "tyranny of the status quo" which takes over about 100 days after the new guy is in office. Why not just get a bill passed immediately after taking office that 1) immediately lowers both income and sales taxes to 9% as proposed and 2) calls for BOTH a complete phase-out of income tax while creating and phasing in a sales tax? Otherwise you risk getting bogged down midstream with a sales tax without having passed a bill abolishing the income tax - a Socialists dream.
That's entirely true, and a far more likely scenario than the company passing the FICA tax savings on to the employee. It is, after all, an expense to the company so it makes sense for the company to use the savings to the best advantage of the company itself. So if we can agree that the odds are heavily against the employee getting the money then can we also agree that it should not be factored into the employee tax bill under the current tax law?
Bttt
>> “REALITY: Corporations are absolutely drowning in cash and NOT hiring today, as it is.” <<
.
Obamacare.
I totally disagree. Making all taxes visible to the public is most desirable. Our current 67,000 page tax code is that large to provide loopholes and wiggle room for the large corporations and political elites. I am guessing the 9-9-9 tax code would be miniscule in comparison. I doubt that it would be anywhere close to 100 pages. We are currently double and triple taxed and its all hidden from public view. You purchase an Item at X dollars and it may have 5 or 6 levels of taxes already added to the price. You pay the last tax and never know about the hidden taxes. The 9-9-9 plan also assures that everyone with income contributes something as apposed to our current situation where 50% of the public pays zero.
You get around the constitutional issues by keeping your eye on the conservative sparrow and electing Tea Party conservatives to the House and Senate in 2012. There are people who need to be removed from both the House and Senate. That is how we do it. Vote them out and elect someone who cares about "We the People". 2010 was a good start. We MUST do the same or better in 2012.
My argument doesn’t particularly address whether a different tax code would eventually be better. I think changes should be made in small increments so people have plenty of time to adjust.
If you could make a tax system that was trivially simple, it would destroy a significant part of the economy, and put a lot of people out of work. If they had time to find new ways to make money, it would be an easier transition.
If all the hidden taxes are eliminated and the only tax that is paid is the 9% sales tax when you purchase an item, I can imagine that gasoline would become much cheaper. Gasoline probably has more hidden taxes than any other item. Gasoline prices affect all other prices in a big way. If prices are substantially reduced on gasoline it would be like a shot of adrenaline to the economy.
The more I study and understand the 9-9-9 plan the more I like it.
I apologize, I’m trying not to make assumptions. His plan, at his web site, explicitly states that phase one enhanced is to be “passed” by the supercommittee. What I put in my comment was the quote from his plan.
The rest is conjecture as to why he thinks the supercommittee can pass anything, or why if he really meant “recommend”, he thinks his plan should be built in secret by a 12-member committee and then sent to the house and senate to be passed without debate or amendment. I say THAT because the debt ceiling bill that created the supercommittee mandated that their recommendations be treated that way.
So the Cain proposal calls for his 9-9-9 plan to be passed by the supercommittee, which if he means “recommended” would require a house and senate vote with no amendment or debate.
Now, if I know that, Cain certainly knows that. So why did he say “pass”, and why doesn’t he want debate or amendment?
And since the supercommittee is going to finish their work in the next few weeks, when is Cain going to send his proposal to them in legislative form so they could “pass” it?
Cain SAID it was OK to call it a VAT.
Does 9-9-9 including eliminating gas taxes?
SO, if I understand your comment (pretty lazy of you to just repost a comment to someone else that doesn’t particularly apply to how I addressed you, but I’m sure you are just too busy to bother with decorum), you don’t care how conservative Perry has governed, because in his position as Governor, he spoke at a convention of La Raza held in his state.
That certainly is your right, but it does nothing to support your false claim that Perry can’t be trusted to be conservative.
There are good reasons to oppose Cains plan, as I do, but what you describe here is not one of them. The federal government has no business treating those who choose to remain single, childless or unencumbered by a home mortage any differently than they do those who choose to be married with children with mortgages they can not afford to pay.
What you advocate is a system that chooses winners and losers to buy votes. Same in the corporate world and one of the major problems with a national sales tax is the ability of Congress to tax things they like at lower rates than that which they don't like.
Under the Cain plan, labor costs are taxed (are not deductable for purposes of determining net income). He explains that this is part of how he lowers the tax rate, by taxing a lot more of the money a company gets.
So, a company no longer would avoid taxes by hiring more people, removing that incentive, as opposed to a capital investment in a robot that can take an employee’s job, which I think will be deductable.
Although since Cain actually does NOT have a detailed plan, or even much of a plan at all, I’m not sure what exactly is taxed and not taxed under the Cain tax proposal, except what he tells us from time to time.
You can imagine that all you want but it is by no means certain.
With a national sales tax every products tax rate will be at the whim of the next Congress. Think about it.
...If you could make a tax system that was trivially simple, it would destroy a significant part of the economy, and put a lot of people out of work. If they had time to find new ways to make money, it would be an easier transition....
Yeah we need to keep those non-productive paper pushing jobs and expenses as a brake on the economy so everyone suffers not just the few who need to be retrained to do something productive for a change...we have had more “tax reforms” in my lifetime than I can remember we need to go cold turkey.
I agree that any tax hikes are at the whim of Congress, but isn't that already the case? Herman Cain said it best. Don't elect those who would raise the tax rate. Also there is more tax on gasoline than that graph shows. It represents the final tax you pay as a consumer but doesn't show the taxes paid by the middle men which also increases the price. The refiners pay a tax which they add on to the price, the distributors pay a tax and pass it on, and so do the local jobbers. I remember about 15 years ago the effective tax on gasoline was roughly 53 cents/gallon. I am sure its much higher now.
Ok is it easier to raise a tax on 50% of the voters or 100% of the voters?
The first group might re-elect you, the second group without real proof of the need to raise taxes might tar and feather you as they ride you out of DC on a rail....
Most Fairtax proposals use some sort of pre-bate to try to overcome the problem of re-taxing savings. It complicates things, but at least makes it a little less onerous.
I’m not sure how to handle the transition from income to consumption taxes without punishing savers and rewarding debtors. But since there are a lot more debtors than savers, such a plan can get majority suport.
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.