Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Harriet Leave the Reception in Their Honeymoon Shells
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If you sign up
A sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/24/2011 1:45:55 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Or we could just call them Reparation Zones.
I can't imagine Col. West doing this but my eyes were slapped open when Colin Powell endorsed Obama. That was a shock. I would like Cain to be asked if he voted for Obama and I want to see if his eyes can convince me.
This morning I read a Manhattan Institute analysis of 999 which shows that the corporate tax component is a VAT. I had assumed that it was just a flat corporate income tax.
Introducing a VAT would be very bad policy, and this is a deal-breaker for me and most conservatives (once they learn this) on 999. I still would enthusiastically support Cain if he gets the nomination, but he needs to rethink his tax proposal.
If you haven’t noticed, because of Democrat plantation politics most of the areas where the poor are most concentrated happen to be urban centers which are, yes, largely black.
If someone wants to write a policy focusing on our most concentrated poor areas, yes, that will focus on urban centers that are largely black.
Getting rid of these plantations helps us all.
Would you want to move to downtown Detroit so you could get a percentage off your income tax? Get real.
Moreover, you are not accurate if you think OZ only apply to black city centers. ANY locale can apply to be designated an OZ; there are no restrictions on that. ANY locale that applies and meets the criteria, including (as at the link I’ve posted upthread) abolishing minimum wage laws and implementing right-to-work laws (no unions), can become an OZ.
And, again, anyone who wants to live in an OZ is free to move there to take advantage of its (tiny) tax advantage.
Finally, as I posted on this reparations nonsense earlier:
The whole political reason for these OZ is that in most of these urban centers people have been paying ZERO taxes, In fact, they were getting a check from taxpayers, called the Earned Income Tax Credit.
ALL that changes under 999. Hence the wailing by Libs and, unfortunately, Michele Bachmann, that 999 will “hurt the poor the most.”
What’s the argument there? That because these people were paying NOTHING and now will have to pay SOMETHING, they, the poor, are “hurt the most.”
Making people who were paying nothing pay something is so far from any stink of “reparations” as to be laughable. It’s the diametric opposite.
See post #122, especially re Michele Bachmann.
If you want to see reparations somewhere, look at the welfare state we have been paying into for decades. That is going to start to change, even just under 999. Every time someone swipes their EBT card, they would be returning 9% of their present taxpayer handout back to the taxpayers through the NRST.
Your reply contained nothing substantive as to the fact that making people who had paid nothing into the system pay something into the system is nowhere near “reparations.”
The fact that some people may be exempted from paying something because their taxable income is so low doesn’t change anything.
All these tax reform proposals, just as Perry’s does, will end up exempting an initial amount of income.
As for comments in poor taste, the fact that “other people do it” is not an excuse!
Yes, broadening the tax base can mean making more stuff subject to tax.
But no, that's not all it means. It can also mean making more non-taxpayers into taxpayers. In fact, this is often the ultimate result of making more stuff subject to tax. This pulls more people into paying taxes.
In the context of this debate, considering one critical goal is to stop the growth of the parastite class by beginning the process of making them pay taxes, and pay in a way that vastly increases the amount of political accountability in the system for all of us, it's important to focus on the ultimate result of making more nontaxpayers into taxpayers -- i.e., one way of saying "broaden the tax base."
Obviously, we wouldn't be having this meme going around about how "broadening the tax base = taxing the poor" (see also my Michele Bachmann analysis at #122), if it weren't understood that the broadening here is as to taxpayers.
BTW, it's a little hypocritical to knock Perry's tax PAYER base when Cain is out there touting "empowerment zones" and his phase 2 Fairtax with "prebates".
I've read this several times and simply can't figure out what your criticism is. If you'd be so kind as to elaborate, I'd be glad to respond as best I can.
OZ would be likely to apply to predominately black urban centers because the vast majority of our poorest, most rundown, most horrible areas in this nation “happen” to be black.
Can you point me to many “white suburban zones” that have the same concentration of economic and social pathologies as the typical poor urban center, which happens to be black?
You seem to be bewailing the fact that Democrat plantation politics have enslaved mostly blacks, but whites, not so much.
I’ve posted to others subsequently, so won’t repeat here, but will ask you to read through the rest of the thread if you’re interested. I’d be glad to respond to your comments. I’ve explained that OZ of course would benefit blacks because blacks are the worst off (thanks, Democrat plantation owners). But ANY locale can apply to be an OZ and, if it meets the criteria, be designated as such.
I just don’t see making Mr. Cain’s proposals into a racist act when, clearly, objectively, if for whatever reason you want to tailor a tax policy to address poverty in America, there is no way to do that without it disproportionately affecting black Americans, because black Americans are the ones who have been disproportionately ensared by Democrat-created generational poverty.
Mr. Cain is not a racist. Neither is his tax plan.
I propose a 75% tax on all contributions collected by ethnic centered special interest groups. Additionally, there should be a 95% tax imposed on all judgments collected by way of “discrimination” lawsuits.
As to 999, I have posted that I would rather see a standard deduction for income in the amount of that at the poverty line for everyone.
You are overlooking the fact that under 999 everyone would pay NRST. That is one of the reasons, after a lot of thought, I came to support that. Even people 100% on welfare would pay (return to the taxpayers) 9% when they swipe their EBT cards (the new way welfare is distributed — through electronic benefits transfer cards, now conveniently accepted at fast food joints, convenience stores and taco trucks, too!).
Further, the number of people who would be exempted under 999, as far as paying NO tax, would be quite small: only those whose income is at or below the poverty level. (Compare to the number of households that would be exempted after Perry’s standard deductions were applies.)
Everyone else would pay income tax, with those in an OZ paying one or a few percentage points less. In the scheme of things, this would not be enough to take away from the effectiveness of 999 as a whole.
Frankly, I doubt many cities would actually become OZ, because at least at first there would be too much political resistance toward giving up minimum wage laws and implementing right-to-work policies. So that internal struggle would have to rage on before a city such as Detroit even got to the point that it applied to be an OZ.
“Flat tax we all pay the same rate.”
Not under Perry’s plan, because it keeps in place the old tax code as well, including the old tax code’s incredible Leviathan of loopholes and shenanigans.
Further, under the flat tax we don’t “all pay.” It starts with what it calls “generous deductions.” These standard deductions are such that there might be many more households that pay NO tax than pay now. And certainly almost ALL “poor” people — not just those in any OZ — would pay NO income tax under the Perry plan.
All that could be a matter of degree, so to speak, but since, unlike the Cain plan, the Perry plan does not have a NRST, once people are exempted from paying income tax (and, again, under the Perry plan, almost ALL “poor” people would end up paying NO income taxes because of the standard deductions), those paying NO income taxes pay NO open and notorious taxes at all.
(Of course, everyone presently pays the about 20+% Fedzilla taxes embedded [i.e., “hidden”] in the present cost of consumer goods. Compared to the 9% open and notorious NRST tax everyone would pay under 999. The bottom line being: We cannot hold our Congress accountable so long as we continue to allow them to hide the taxes they burden us with.)
” I just don’t see making Mr. Cain’s proposals into a racist ....”
Cain said his Enterprise Zone plan , with rates possibly as low as 333 ,
was specifically to help
“ Black Americans “ and
“ African Americans “ living in inner cities.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/13/ebo.01.html
He never said anything bout helping poor white Americans living in Appalachia.
Or Native Americans living in extreme poverty
on the reservations.
Jonathan Karl reported last Monday on World News
that Cain
was going to use a lower tax rate for inner city blacks
as a way to get votes.
” In another unconventional move for a Republican,
Cain’s aides tell me he’s going to make a direct appeal
for African American votes,
unveiling a plan later
this week to help inner city poor.
A plan , I am told , that will include tax rates even lower
than 9 9 9. “
More white Americans live in poverty in rural areas than blacks do in the inner cities.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/pov_myths.htm
Aid to those living in poverty should be color blind.
No I wouldn't, and that's the point. I will not support anybody who wants to tax Americans at different rates due to their zip code. Why should someone who makes less money but spends most of it on rent so he can live in a better neighborhood pay higher rates than someone who makes more and lives in a big city? Fankly, I think that's unAmerican. And why incentivise blacks to stay in 'da hood?
(1) most of these people are paying NOTHING, and are, in fact, TAKING under the EITC, and
(2) exactly NO American pays the same rate now; even those technically in the same marginal tax bracket do not pay the same effective tax rate -- because of the loopholes, deductions and so on that would be ELIMINATED under 999.
Why should someone who makes less money but spends most of it on rent so he can live in a better neighborhood pay higher rates than someone who makes more and lives in a big city? Fankly, I think that's unAmerican.
Good grief, this is EXACTLY what is happening NOW, only instead of the differential being a few percentage points, it is between ZERO income being subjected to tax and much higher tax rates.
So, yes, I agree with you that the PRESENT TAX CODE is un-American and it must be changed, for example, to something like the 999 plan.
And why incentivise blacks to stay in 'da hood?
You can't be serious.
Going from paying nothing to paying something is an incentive?
Are you not aware that it is the Democrat welfare state, including a tax code that only taxes 50% of Americans and which provides a "tax rebate" to those who don't even pay taxes, that has "incentivized" blacks to stay in the urban plantations -- as well as incentivized all the social pathologies that are associated with the urban centers?
You continue to act as though only blacks are eligible for the poverty-line exemption or to live in OZ. It is a color-blind policy. It's just too bad that Democrat policies have disproportionately affected American blacks for decades.
Our current tax system applies equally to all Americans, regardless of where they live. Taxing at different rates due to different incomes is one thing. Taxing people with the same income at different rates based on where they live is quite different. The same rules should apply to all, regardless of where they live. You can spin it any way you want, but that’s the bottom line for me anyway.
It may not technically be a different rate, but I'd be extremely surprised if people were not taxed differently under Fedzilla based on where they live.
Even so, how in the world is that so awful compared to what we have now -- where NO one pays the same rate EVER on the same income?
You are making a huge line in the sand over a few people possibly (and it's not clear at all to me that any of these locales would be willing to be OZs) OPENLY and without variation getting a little lower rate compared to a system under which NO one ever pays the same effective rate on the same income, and which, no doubt, even also taxes people differently based on where they live (through loopholes for this and that and surcharges for this and that).
How can you justify being outraged over the former while you are actually justify the latter?
999 will help all Americans.
I am trying to understand why there seems to be so much resentment among some about making people who had not been paying any taxes, and who in fact are taking taxes (both through welfare and the EITC), pay something, if not make the immediate leap to paying the same as everyone else.
And while there are those, seemingly you among them, who claim Cain's plan is racist for, supposedly, targeting help to black Americans (although, in fact, anyone who lives in an OZ gets that rate, not just blacks, and any locale can apply to be an OZ, not just centers of black populations), at the other end of the spectrum, we have Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann and others fiddling the Liberal violins by wailing that 999 "hurts the poor the most."
[Here at # 76.]
So according to the Stupid Party and conservatives, Herman Cain is racist if his plan has targeted help that benefits blacks and is a "heartless" if his plan doesn't provide targeted help and thus "hurts the poor the most."
Great. Good luck with ANY entitlement reform, folks.
I'm sure you understand that if American blacks ever stop voting in lockstep for the Democrat party, that is the end of that party forever?
Many have been saying for years that the GOP needed to find a way to tap into the black American vote that was essentially conservative, but which had been given to the Dems by rote decade after decade.
Now along comes a candidate who says he's actually going to attempt that -- he's going to try to peel off 30% of the black vote and thus break up the biggest voting bloc in the Dem base in history -- and what happens?
People such as yourself seem to be hollering that this is racist or otherwise wrong somehow.
As I posted to you previously, Cain can't even get through a GOP debate without some blabbermouth CONSERVATIVE critizing his plan to make everyone pay something as "it hurts the poor the most."
As if we'll ever get ANY entitlement reform through if our own stupid party falls into the B.S. trap that "it hurts the poor the most." Doesn't cutting back welfare, in some version of the universe, "hurt the poor the most"?
Cain's entire plan is about helping ALL of America. Please! It sounds so very whiney to be saying "but he didn't specifically mention this guy or that."
I applaude him for standing up and saying our inner cities stink and they ARE the most graphic evidence of the Democrat plantation ever. And the solution Cain is going to apply to them is everything a conservative could want, including requiring cities to abolish minimum wage laws and implement right-to-work policies in order to apply to become an OZ.
Also, while of course OZ are targeted to inner cities, which -- why can't we come out and say this without getting some whiney pushback about the guy in Appalachia or the man on the Indian Reservation (good grief, I thought I was watching "THe View" there for a moment)?? -- we all KNOW are majority black, the OZ rates are for anyone, of any race, who lives there. And the OZ designation is available to any locale, regardless of its population's majority race, that applies and meets the criteria.
” I ‘m sure you understand that if American blacks ever stop voting in lockstep for the Democrat party, that is the end of that party forever? “
Herman Cain throwing our tax dollars at the inner city
is not going to change that dynamic.
Blacks of their own free vote Democrat ,
time and time again.
It’s their choice .
Giving them a tax break is not going to make them conservative.
In fact, it might reinforce that they get special deals.
Cain is more educated and worldly than the average citizen in the inner city
and even he didn’t become a Republican
until age 50 in 1996.
And that was only because he was insulted and derided
when he had lunch with Jack Kemp
in a Harlem restaurant.
Your post is all about the past.
This election is about the future.
And, while I try always to be polite, drivel such as this tries my patience mightily:
Herman Cain throwing our tax dollars at the inner city
GOOD GRIEF. Have you never heard of the welfare state and the trillions you have already thrown at the inner city? And which you will continue to throw there UNLESS something such as 999 is implemented?
What don't you understand about the fact that presently the inner cities are doing nothing but soaking up endless taxpayer dollars and that 999 will actually make the people in those areas pay something, rather than nothing?
How in Hell's Bells is making people who were paying nothing pay something equate to "throwing tax dollars at them"?
How in Hell's Bells is taxing businesses that didn't even exist previously, so paid nothing, "throwing tax dollars at them"?
How in Hell's Bells is making people in the inner cities pay taxes through the NRST, when they were contributing nothing previously (and in fact were taking, through welfare and the EITC), "thowing tax dollars at them"?
That's just stupid. And worse.
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.