Not if the income tax were entirely repealed first instead of following this incremental step towards doing that.
Considering his tax plan eventually has no income tax, I think He’d be on your side.
Meanwhile, he’s proposing drastic improvements, even if they are reversible (though he explains why that becomes unlikely politically).
“Do you think Cain would oppose a credible effort to repeal the 16th amendment? Considering his tax plan eventually has no income tax, I think He’d be on your side.”
I don’t disagree but he’s not throwing that out as part of his tax plan. He’s proposing 9-9-9.
“Meanwhile , he’s proposing drastic improvements, even if they are reversible (though he explains why that becomes unlikely politically).”
Might indeed be a drastic improvement, but if you’re proposing drastic improvement, why choose an incremental one? It’s like saying, “Now, we know that the ideal is a flat tax, so let’s instead remove all tax credits from the income tax.” Why propose incremental change in what is destined to be the biggest mandate that conservatives could ever have? Why propose a NEW tax without removing the old one from the table? Why would any conservative support a new tax without that guarantee, given the history of new taxes this country has produced?