Unless there are transitional mechanisms in this that ends proglodyte slavery rampant in the inner cities then these zones should be aborted.
Alright, I'll try to explain to the best of my ability - bear in mind that I am no economist - I wasn't even a good student in school! ;D
I agree AP, it would be nice to have it less than 23%. The studies that have been done though show that 23% is the lowest it can be in order to balance everything. Regardless, the average taxpayer is still paying about 35% (45% if state and embedded taxes are considered). So after looking at that, 23% is sounding really good to me!
So,, having bored most of you to tears (I'm quite certain!), the reason I'm supporting Cain is not because of the FAIR Tax or the 9-9-9 plan per-say. I'm supporting him because he is the MOST CONSERVATIVE in the race. Of all the other candidates, Herman Cain is the only one I can vote for and actually feel like I've voted for the right person for the job rather than the lesser of two evils (as I've been forced to do now for the last several election cycles). That's it in a nutshell for me. Romneycare, Mr. Isolationist and 'heartless-if-you-don't-like-illegal-aliens' just don't get it - they're not conservatives.
I agree AP, it would be nice to have it less than 23%. The studies that have been done though show that 23% is the lowest it can be in order to balance everything. Regardless, the average taxpayer is still paying about 35% (45% if state and embedded taxes are considered). So after looking at that, 23% is sounding really good to me!
BMG... if 23% is needed in order to balance everything....
What if we were able to incorporate a 45% reduction in all federal government? Abolish the Dept. of Education, Remove the EPA, cut the military in half by leaving 50+ bases all over the world we no longer need, cutting back or eliminating social security, medicare, medicade, etc, etc.
If we could cut the federal government down to more of what it should be.. could that 23% tax on everyone drop to maybe.... 14%?
Talk about incentive for people to cut their favorite programs. ::thinking::
So,, having bored most of you to tears (I'm quite certain!), the reason I'm supporting Cain is not because of the FAIR Tax or the 9-9-9 plan per-say. I'm supporting him because he is the MOST CONSERVATIVE in the race. Of all the other candidates, Herman Cain is the only one I can vote for and actually feel like I've voted for the right person for the job rather than the lesser of two evils (as I've been forced to do now for the last several election cycles). That's it in a nutshell for me. Romneycare, Mr. Isolationist and 'heartless-if-you-don't-like-illegal-aliens' just don't get it - they're not conservatives.
Not bored by any stretch BMG (and welcome to the fray!)
As I commented upstream, I want to vet the crap out of all this because I want to understand. In my opinion (and my opinion only) "Empowerment Zones" are a no-starter. The very notion makes me bristle. I'm not sure that anyone can convince me of their value - and I know that no one can compel me to submit.
Just as romney broke an irretrievable trust with romneycare, and perry created a fissure that might still be a show-stopper, this twist takes Cain's 999 plan and turns it into "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
Oops - spoke too soon. There is one way that Cain can redeem himself - define "Empowerment Zones" as any of the 50 (or 57 if you are Øbozo) states.
Then we'll talk.
It's Compassionate Conservatism.
I'm curious why Cain believes these Zones should be cities, what with the crumbling infrastructure in almost every one.
If he's leaning toward helping the poor downtrodden Black population, still/yet/again/more, coupled with the idea that if government just butt the hell out, the whole country would be an Empowerment Zone, I'm less than interested.
I'm curious why Cain believes these Zones should be cities, what with the crumbling infrastructure in almost every one.
If he's leaning toward helping the poor downtrodden Black population, still/yet/again/more, coupled with the idea that if government just butt the hell out, the whole country would be an Empowerment Zone, I'm less than interested.
I think it's his attempt to take votes away from Obama from the Black-vote. If he can give them some glimmer of hope that if they voted for Cain that he could keep giving them freebies... he might manage to pull a few away from OBummer.
Well, if so, then that's sort of running under false pretenses, wouldn't you say? Unless I'm the dupe because he does intend to continue the freebies.
As we get farther into the candidates, Cain appears to be the conservative in the room. I like the 999 plan. I need a definition of empowermant zone, but I'm not going to throw out his entire premise because of one bulletpoint, because changing our tax structure will create a booming economy......
*Features a platform to launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to revitalize our inner cities
"Empowerment zone" could carry many implications. Communities all across America give tax breaks to bring in jobs. I see this as no different. I bet we all have areas in our cities that used to be run down, but have been re vilalized...I know Nashville does and the downtown business has thrived and btw, pushed the "empowermant zones" into a very small area. The issue with some of the re vilalization is it was done with taxes....I don't believe this is how Cain operates. Maybe an "empowermant zone" will be based on private business, not gov't contracts. Heck, maybe it means an electric fence. The key is "properly structured"... I take this to equate to taking areas where private business, with proper incentive, are willing to take risk for profit. Understanding Cain, I do not take it as gov't program giveaways , free housing, etc. Remember, he is a businessman and he thinks like one.
I don't want to be too quick to dismiss. Maybe Mr Cain can re define "compassionate conservative" by creating opportunity and not token giveaways.
That's probably the correct perspective at this point. And you're right - there's a LOT for a conservative to LOVE with the 999 plan. Even if an "Empowerment Zone" is a tax-free ring around every ghetto with free ponies and fried chicken for all "Urban" folks, the nation would be light-years better off from an economic growth standpoint than it is under the current burdensome tax regime.
My reaction is more, as I said initially, "Ugh". The terminology and the implication causes a gut reaction of disappointment.
...The progressives have gotten their way by slow and incremental removal of our freedoms... the only way to get it back might be the same technique.. slowly give people back their freedoms and hope they grow a spine and become involved in regaining the rest of their freedoms.
... I would be shocked if his properly constructed empowermwnt zones equates to more free stuff.
... I would be shocked if his properly constructed empowermwnt zones equates to more free stuff.
You sure would think so, given everything this guy seems to be all about. Entitlement zone according to demographic seems completely out of character. So out of character, that I would say that if these zones are indeed simple tax-free handout zones to Blacks, that would make him a hypocrite. He doesn't seem like a hypocrite to me.
When I got a chance to get back online and do some more digging I found a couple articles that may be of some help to the original post at this thread.
Excerpts taken from The Christian Science Monitor, 'Herman Cain's '999 plan': long overdue tax reform or job killer?' Sept 30, 2011 (I cut & pasted snippets from the article so if you wish to read the entire thing [it provides points of views of both conservatives and liberals in the analysis] I have provided the information which should allow you to find and read the whole piece):
"This taxes everything once but nothing twice.
A high income earner who makes $300,000 per year would pay $49,113 in taxes, which would amount to 16.3 percent of their income. But, today, that individual would pay $83,897 or 27.97 percent of their income in taxes.
A middle income taxpayer that makes $55,000 per year would pay $9,319 in combined taxes, coming to 16.9 percent of their income. Today, that individual would pay $9,875 and would pay 17.95 percent of their income in taxes.
In the near future, Lowrie says Cain will release his plan for low income areas which he terms “empowerment zones.” People living, working, and employing people in those areas would receive tax deductions.
In addition, Cain would eliminate Payroll taxes, which now go to fund Social Security and Medicare. That would mean both entitlement programs would be funded out of general revenue."
So this defines what is meant by 'empowerment zones' and gives some better details about the overall 9-9-9 plan.
Now for a more in-depth analysis I went to Free Republic's thread where they were picking apart the 9-9-9 Plan at this link: ( http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2790605/posts (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2790605/posts) ) which proved very educational and only served to reinforce my opinion that this plan is a good half-step to the FAIR Tax and that Herman Cain IS the man to back.
I also found this snippet in the discussion concerning the 'empowerment zones' that I thought I would share:
"It’s an effort to get businesses to get into the inner city and get people off of WELFARE. I can buy into this plan because I want to see welfare go the way of the steam engine. For everyone."
I pray that the good Lord allows us the time. I don't know that there's time for incrementalism.
And he's required to sire multiple children
Couple weeks ago, I read about an obit or arrest warrant for an "entrepreneur" who had about 125 children
I'll see if I can find it
If individual Fed tax rates are reduced to 9%, I don't see how this is going to change the way taxes are collected; the IRS will still be needed. I'm less than thrilled as well that those working in the Zones will be allowed tax deductions, unlike everyone else.
...Normally I'm more a lurker - hanging out and reading and rarely posting stuff...
The one thing that does worry me however, is the election after this and the one after that. After all, if we as a country, were STUPID enough to elect Obama in the first place and hand over the reigns of power to the socialists well...that worries me quite a bit as far as the outlook of our future.
@Pandora and Charles:
http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/09/25/herman-cain-web-ad-explains-his-999-plan-that-would-abolish-the-current-u-s-tax-system-video/ (http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/09/25/herman-cain-web-ad-explains-his-999-plan-that-would-abolish-the-current-u-s-tax-system-video/)
"Here is a Herman Cain web ad explaining his “999? Economic Plan for America. Cain wants to get rid of the current tax code and replace it with:
- A 9% tax on Corporate Profits
- A 9% Personal Flat Tax Rate
- A 9% National Sales Tax
The current tax system would disappear, and be replaced with these three simple measures. Cain has been a supporter of the “Fair Tax” in the past, but believes this is an interim approach that the American people would be willing to accept right now.
One thing abut Herman Cain. He keeps repeating his ideas over and over again, and it appears to be sinking into the consciousness of GOP voters. When he mentioned his “999? Plan at the Florida Straw Poll yesterday, the audience actually said it with him. Perhaps, people are beginning to really listen to Herman Cain."
Cain's plan eliminates the IRS as a prelude to installing the FAIR Tax.
The current tax system would disappear, and be replaced
Would not the 16th A not have to be repealed to kill it?According to the SCOTUS ruling almost a century ago, the Federal government always had the power to levy the income tax even though they past the 16th Amendment(likely the votes were tallied up by progressives, yes, probably a lie -it past) We'll never know because like Ovomit's records , it's state secret anyway their simply was infiltration into the judicial even at that early date.
So what is actually happening is the employee is relieved of federal income tax and 7.5% FICA, replaced by 9%. The employer is relieved of corporate income tax and 7.5% FICA, replaced by 9%.
Well, if that's the case Delnorin, Cain certainly hasn't articulated it. Could be though.
Well, if that's the case Delnorin, Cain certainly hasn't articulated it. Could be though.
Nor articulated (to my satisfaction) the Empowerment Zones.
Well, if that's the case Delnorin, Cain certainly hasn't articulated it. Could be though.
Nor articulated (to my satisfaction) the Empowerment Zones.
Are we experiencing a little of what congressmen experience in D.C.?
An idea is tossed out for the masses to approve of and the media all support it or condemn it. But we... the people that have to dig into the details and know EXACTLY what's in the small print... find a LOT of questions.
But... by then the public has either gotten behind it or they hate it and no matter what the 'truth of the matter' is about the details.. if we go against the public now we're screwed?
That's a good thought. Every once and a great while, when I get a wee glimpse of what legislators have to go through, I get a smidgen of empathy... and then it goes away. ::exitstageleft::
As it is, with many conservatives feeling that Cain is the last hope to thwart a Romney candidacy, the last thing I relish doing is picking apart 9-9-9 now that he's done such a good job selling it.
If he could just cut that 9 9 9 to 4 4 4 then, he would have something! ::oldman::
If he could just cut that 9 9 9 to 4 4 4 then, he would have something! ::oldman::
Or even a compromise...
6 6 6
::hysterical::
Heck, It's what I feel we have now..... ::evil::
If he could just cut that 9 9 9 to 4 4 4 then, he would have something! ::oldman::
Or even a compromise...
6 6 6
::hysterical::
Heck, It's what I feel we have now..... ::evil::
If he could just cut that 9 9 9 to 4 4 4 then, he would have something! ::oldman::
Or even a compromise...
6 6 6
::hysterical::
Heck, It's what I feel we have now..... ::evil::
Nah, I live in the 665 areacode. You know - not exactly Hell, but you can see it from my back porch... ::evil::
Famed supply-side economist Art Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS that Cain's "9-9-9" plan was a pro-growth plan that would create the proper conditions for America's economy to grow and thrive again.
"Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."
Janny, I'm still undecided on this plan but the sales tax thing is sort of attractive to me in some ways.
People that are paying nothing now would have skin in the game
Reducing the income tax to 9% and eliminating the 7.65% ss and medicare tax gets me to an effective 1.35% income tax (plus the employer match)
The devil will be in the details and, specifically, what will be exempt from the sales tax.
Pa, for example, has so many exemptions to their sales tax that it's impossible to know every one of them
Should food and clothing be exempt?
Will internet sales finally be included?
I assume new cars and houses would be included but what about if I sell my used car or my house and buy a "used" home?
The 9% corp tax sounds good on the face. I know it allows business investments to be deducted but what about business expenses?
Rasmussen Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary)
Cain ........................29%
Romney ...................29%
Gingrich ...................10%
Rick Perry ..................9%
Ron Paul ...................5%
Michele Bachmann ......4%
Rick Santorum ............2%
Jon Huntsman ............2%
some other candidate .3%
not sure ....................7%
THE endorsement that matters
Godfather of Supply-Side Economics Supports Cain's '9-9-9' Plan (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46828)QuoteFamed supply-side economist Art Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS that Cain's "9-9-9" plan was a pro-growth plan that would create the proper conditions for America's economy to grow and thrive again.Quote"Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."
Don - I've been trying to refrain from verbalizing what I would like to see happen in favor of what I think will happen. Within this context I see a problem with the "Empowerment Zone" aspect of his plan. That means we need more clarification from Cain. I'm not writing him off by any stretch.
Don - I've been trying to refrain from verbalizing what I would like to see happen in favor of what I think will happen. Within this context I see a problem with the "Empowerment Zone" aspect of his plan. That means we need more clarification from Cain. I'm not writing him off by any stretch.
I'm not writing him off either.
Even though I have read the whole thread my blond, senile, ADHD brain doesn't retain info like it did.
I apologize for asking questions that have already been answered.
What about excise taxes such as the fed gas tax ($.184/gallon), phone excise taxes, etc.
Personally, I think 401(k)s should be treated like Roth IRAs.
You paid the tax upfront, you keep the growth
But, the IRS still lives.
@AP:
As I understand it, as with the FAIR Tax, Cain's 9-9-9 Plan applies ONLY to new items - not used items. So used cars, houses, etc are only taxed ONCE - when they are new. If resold, there is no further tax burden on those items.
Similarly, it operates like the FAIR Tax in that the tax applies to all goods AND services. So you would pay the tax at the point of sale (eliminating the IRS) which would include services for things like, hair cuts, 401k-related operational fees, etc.
The way I understand it, if it's a federal tax then this 9-9-9 Plan will nullify it.
THE endorsement that matters
Godfather of Supply-Side Economics Supports Cain's '9-9-9' Plan (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46828)QuoteFamed supply-side economist Art Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS that Cain's "9-9-9" plan was a pro-growth plan that would create the proper conditions for America's economy to grow and thrive again.Quote"Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."
I'm appreciative Art agrees with me. ::thumbsup::
OK...The rest of you......Dang. You gonna throw him under the bus because of one small part of his plan you MAY not agree?
We FINALLY get a candidate who doesn't necessarily act like a politican, who thinks like a businessman ( which imo, is what we need), building his brand, has momentum....and we will go galt because of an "empowerment zone"????? WTF? We don't even know what it is, but we think we know.... And hell, it may turn out to be EXACTLY what some think it is, so I guess the question becomes will ONE point of contention make him a non starter?
It would be unreasonable.
...I don't see it, or take it, as personal and would hate for that issue to raise its ugly head here this election as it did during the last.
We can't allow that to happen. We're all entitled to our opinion. Already, there is the basic division between those who say they will vote against Obama no matter what, and those who've had enough and will not vote for an unacceptable conservative nominee.
Thought some of you might be interested in this if you haven't seen it yet.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/)
Thought some of you might be interested in this if you haven't seen it yet.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/)
Yup. Getting the Art Laffer and the Paul Ryan endorsement in the same news cycle is noteworthy. Let's see how Cain is able to capitalize on it.
We can't allow that to happen. We're all entitled to our opinion. Already, there is the basic division between those who say they will vote against Obama no matter what, and those who've had enough and will not vote for an unacceptable conservative nominee.
This is where I was in the last election for Prez.
This time though I think if we can just get RID of OBummer and then pack another 50+ tea party congressmen and senators into their respective places.. then no matter how much of a Douche the GOP candidate is... he'll be forced to follow the lead of the citizens selected representatives. Or.. toss him out on his ear at the end of four years and replace him/her... and again pack even more tea party congressmen and senators.
If we can make the presidency the only progressive of the branches of government.. then we can railroad him into doing what we want as a country.
Imagine having a 2/3'rds majority in the House and in the Senate... imagine a President thumbing his nose at that? Can you say Impeachment?
Bring the power back to the people where it belongs!
Thought some of you might be interested in this if you haven't seen it yet.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/)
Yup. Getting the Art Laffer and the Paul Ryan endorsement in the same news cycle is noteworthy. Let's see how Cain is able to capitalize on it.
Paul Ryan likes 2/3 of the plan, and he emphasized that it's a "good starting point." I don't exactly call that an endorsement.
Thought some of you might be interested in this if you haven't seen it yet.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/)
Yup. Getting the Art Laffer and the Paul Ryan endorsement in the same news cycle is noteworthy. Let's see how Cain is able to capitalize on it.
Paul Ryan likes 2/3 of the plan, and he emphasized that it's a "good starting point." I don't exactly call that an endorsement.
If that's peeing in anybody's Cheerios, then they'll just have to open up a box of Rice Krispies.
Regarding the Fair Tax and 999
I remember reading that the price of an item has approximateky 25% built into it to comply with the current cost of the tax code. Meaning a $100 item would actually cost $75 if complying with the current code was scrapped. Under the 999 plan you would have to shell out $75 for the item plus sales tax of 9% or $6.25 plus whatever state sales tax ?(6% in PA) or $4.50 bringing the final price to $85.75. Currently, I'd pay $106($100+$6%)
Savings calculates as $106-$86.75=$19.25
I can either invest something else or spend it on another item. Have I missed something?
Marlk Levin said this evening that the 16th would have to be repealed for the sales tax portion.
Didn't hear the reasoning
Marlk Levin said this evening that the 16th would have to be repealed for the sales tax portion.
Didn't hear the reasoning
Because he doesn't trust "them" to institute the sales @ 9% and drop the Fed income tax to 9%. He's worried about getting the Fed sales tax and present tax rates at the same time.
Marlk Levin said this evening that the 16th would have to be repealed for the sales tax portion.
Didn't hear the reasoning
Because he doesn't trust "them" to institute the sales @ 9% and drop the Fed income tax to 9%. He's worried about getting the Fed sales tax and present tax rates at the same time.
Would a Democrat vote for this?
Do pigs like slop?
If 999 is perfect it still must be passed through congress.
Snowballs rolling down hill.
Cold days in May.
Hell freezing over.
Obama being impeached.
Marlk Levin said this evening that the 16th would have to be repealed for the sales tax portion.
Didn't hear the reasoning
Because he doesn't trust "them" to institute the sales @ 9% and drop the Fed income tax to 9%. He's worried about getting the Fed sales tax and present tax rates at the same time.
Good should come of it, even if it never sees the light of day.
I did hear on the radio this AM that there would be rebates on the sales tax part for below poverty level.
Not a lot of details but it may be a little like the rebate under the Fair Tax
I did hear on the radio this AM that there would be rebates on the sales tax part for below poverty level.
Not a lot of details but it may be a little like the rebate under the Fair Tax
And what about all the government subsidies such as food stamps and housing allowances? The "poor" live in apartments that they pay a fraction of the rent for. Anyone who thinks there will be any (net) tax revenues collected from "the poor" is dreaming.
I just grabbed one of my check stubs
I had $288 for fed tax, $97 for Fica, and $33 for medicare deducted from a gross of $2307
This totals $418. 9% would only be $208
Add in another 9% if I spend it all on taxable stuff and I'm at $416. It's a wash as far as that goes
But, my employer also saves $130 on the employer match. He might give me some of that. (Mine probably won't)
Then throw out all the hidden taxes (gasoline tax $.184/gallon costs me another $10 or so every 2 weeks), telephone tax and God knows how many other taxes
But, then factor in lower corp taxes and compliance costs and stuff will cost less.
I think I come out ahead
Well, guess I'll go right ahead and be counted as a 'dreamer' then Janny...and I'll be voting for such things as the FAIR Tax (or the 9-9-9 step toward the FAIR Tax Plan) until the day I die, or the system is put into action. Frankly I see no other option out there that is better - including our current system. /shrug
Yeah I hear ya Janny and as I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, people are right to question politicians. The last few decades have proven that point without doubt. I have no problem with questioning them in the least.
Maybe we can make it voluntary....You who want the current system can stay in it.
The challenge with getting everyone "back in the game" is that 47% aren't in the game now. That means a tax hike, or even if it comes out in the wash, tax-hike-on-the-po' demagoguery by the Leftists. It'll be a very, very tough thing to get through congress.
I did hear on the radio this AM that there would be rebates on the sales tax part for below poverty level.
Not a lot of details but it may be a little like the rebate under the Fair Tax
And what about all the government subsidies such as food stamps and housing allowances? The "poor" live in apartments that they pay a fraction of the rent for. Anyone who thinks there will be any (net) tax revenues collected from "the poor" is dreaming.
I too see this as a vast improvement over the present system with all the arcane deductions and favoritism and forcing certain behaviors in the 80, ooo pages m/l of tax code
The government subsidies for food stamps, housing... are expenditures. I guess the rebate would be considered the same
This will be a revenue model
The rebate is for political purposes. There would be no chance of passage without it.
The challenge with getting everyone "back in the game" is that 47% aren't in the game now. That means a tax hike, or even if it comes out in the wash, tax-hike-on-the-po' demagoguery by the Leftists. It'll be a very, very tough thing to get through congress.
While I agree.. I don't think it's all up to Cain. I think it's up to every one of us that backs Cain that we let our congressman know that if he doesn't support the fix.. then they're out.
Cain can't hold the congressmen accountable... we do that.
Maybe we can make it voluntary....You who want the current system can stay in it.
What is that supposed to mean? That it's an either/or? How about if I don't think either system is good, and I'd like something better than both of them? You seem to be implying that if I don't like Cain's plan than I have to settle for MOTS. Not true. There are alternatives to Cain's plan, too.
At least with an consumption tax we can get some monies from the Drug dealers. ::whoohoo:: ::hysterical::
Maybe we can make it voluntary....You who want the current system can stay in it.
What is that supposed to mean? That it's an either/or? How about if I don't think either system is good, and I'd like something better than both of them? You seem to be implying that if I don't like Cain's plan than I have to settle for MOTS. Not true. There are alternatives to Cain's plan, too.
The product is only taxed at the end, when it is sold. VAT's are taxed at every level of production whenever the product being produced has been 'improved'. and each time it is taxed, that tax is passed on to the next part of the manufacturing chain until it ends up at the cashier where it is sold.
I see your confusion and here's the answer.
Both Cain's 9-9-9 Plan AND the FAIR Tax have this in common. The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed.
Yeah I know what you mean. The progressives are SCARED TO DEATH that we might get the FAIR Tax. Why? Because it strips power away from the politicians and gives it back to the people...the politicians won't be able to play class warfare games anymore. What the democrats really want is a VAT. Do you recall Obama floating the idea of a VAT a couple years back?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/29/volcker-carbon-tax-vat-should-be-on-the-table/tab/article/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/29/volcker-carbon-tax-vat-should-be-on-the-table/tab/article/)
Why do they want a VAT? Because it is invisible and people have no clue if the rate goes up or down - they just see prices fluctuate and think it's inflation or something - not a regressive tax. Just like our income, SS and Medicare taxes...can you account for exactly how much is taken out of your check as a percentage each month? Likely not - your average citizen can not. And the dems love this - because they can tax the crap out of ppl and they never see it.
It means I understand you don't like the plan and unwilling to show any patience to allow it to unfold because Cain must be hiding something.
I'm satisfied to allow Cain to bring his plan forth as he wants, not to what I want. Like I stated earlier, he could flame out like Bachmann
It means I understand you don't like the plan and unwilling to show any patience to allow it to unfold because Cain must be hiding something.
I never said anything of the kind, so far as Cain "hiding" anything, so you have misunderstood and misstated my position on this. If you will read my other post, I said he is going to have to explain it better.
::popcorn::I'm satisfied to allow Cain to bring his plan forth as he wants, not to what I want. Like I stated earlier, he could flame out like Bachmann
Sorry, we are diametrically opposed on this. Cain will have to win me over, by explaining his plan and backing it up with valid, understandable, analysis. I'm not going to go out of my way to adapt myself to "what he wants."
“I believe in empowerment zones. Most of the unemployed black Americans in this country are in these mostly economically depressed areas. It could be, and I’m only using this as an example, because we haven’t finished establishing the parameters yet. Instead of in a designated empowerment zone, it being 9-9-9, it could be, as an example only, 3-3-3."
First of all, greetings to BMG...and BTW, BMG, I respectfully request that you (and anyone else) refrain from using "the masses" to refer to citizens. It's a small thing, I know, but I really don't like it when we adopt the language of the left. If I accidentally do it, everyone has permission to smack me.
Now my thoughts on these things...
Empowerment zones are not a new concept and were originally called "enterprise zones" popularized (but not coined) by Jack Kemp. I have no problem with the basic concept because it is a supply side style of program. It can work. It's in the details, as many have already said, where the problems lie.
Any wealthy elite who complains that they won't pay enough taxes under a flat rate of income tax can send in more voluntarily. The Republicans in the House are pitching this in a bill which will, of course, never see the light of day under Reid's Senate and the SCOAMF.
Yes, the poor will always be among us but right now we are institutionalizing the poor, creating more than we would otherwise have via subsidies.
I am highly skeptical of the legislature's willingness to give up the power to tinker with people's lives through the tax codes. Cigarette and alcohol taxes immediately come to mind. The tax code is the ring of power and even Frodo had to have it literally bitten off his hand when it came down to the end.
How an individual state taxes its citizens and by how much is their problem. The citizen can vote with his feet and leave if the tax (or regulatory) burden becomes too great. See: California.
I am unclear on the nature of the 999 sales tax. Is it for goods or goods and services?
As a business owner I resent being a tax collector for the state. It's time consuming, has potential liability if I make a mistake and there is zero compensation. So, like all such things, it's passed on to the consumer. It's a hidden cost.
The very real unfair potential of an empowerment zone is going to be compounded with the very real unfair aspect of disproportionate government spending. Wealth redistribution will be no less unpleasant when more money flows into any particular area than others.
So far I have only heard of empowerment zones getting a discount below 9%. What is to stop the exact opposite from happening: A disempowerment zone getting a rate of 18/18/18? But if we have one can it be where Barbra Streisand lives?
What about tinkering by the federal bench? What if they decide that a Robin Hood style of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the right thing to do regardless of a flat (fair) tax? How is that meddling circumvented?
I certainly don't care for the racial aspect of the empowerment zone which has been introduced by Cain, himself. Here is a RedState post (http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2011/10/14/cain-blows-up-999-plan-with-empowerment-zones/) (with video) about that very thing...Quote“I believe in empowerment zones. Most of the unemployed black Americans in this country are in these mostly economically depressed areas. It could be, and I’m only using this as an example, because we haven’t finished establishing the parameters yet. Instead of in a designated empowerment zone, it being 9-9-9, it could be, as an example only, 3-3-3."
That may have been innocent, unintentional and innocuous but I really am ready for a post racial president who can leave the color of a citizen's skin out of policy discussions. Poor or unemployed? Sure, no problem. But the race thing really needs to be left to the Democrats.
“I believe in empowerment zones. Most of the unemployed black Americans... ."It's going to be necessary for him to get media to think it's one of his endearing qualities.
The Federal Government and The Fed must be forced to stop debasing the currency -- that is, they must run a zero inflation policy under penalty of imprisonment (or worse.) If Cain supports this, then he's a reformer. If he does not, he's simply playing politics and intends to screw you blind via hidden taxation.
Cain's plans are not "radical", they're mathematically sound. I understand the screaming that is coming from the left and right on the issue, but the fact that politicians are trying to find yet another Unicorn that craps out pretty colored candies will not make it so.
If there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm. Who knew?
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_knew_conservatives_loved_the_irs.html)QuoteIf there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm. Who knew?
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_knew_conservatives_loved_the_irs.html)QuoteIf there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm. Who knew?
That would be the Ruling Class types!
::gaah::
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_knew_conservatives_loved_the_irs.html)QuoteIf there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm. Who knew?
I’m going to build a wall twenty feet high, cover it in barbed wire, and electrify it. I’m going to put a big sign on it that says if you touch this, it will kill you. Then I’m going to dig a big moat as long as a football field and I’m going to fill it with alligators.
If anyone can climb that wall, swim that moat, fight off the alligators and live to tell about it, I’m going to find them a job.
Janny:
I also already pay a 9% state/local sales tax, so now it would be 18%? And that will grow the economy?
BMG:
I'm fuzzy on the effects of the 9-9-9 Plan on State taxes. I'll try to snoop around and see if I can get any clarification. But all indications I've found so far are pointing to the fact that under 9-9-9 just as with the FAIR Tax, your tax burden will decrease. In the case of the FAIR Tax, the average tax payer pays 45% tax (this figure INCLUDES embedded AND State taxes) and under the FAIR Tax, that burden will decrease to 23%. How 9-9-9 impacts this figure I am uncertain. Bear in mind that 9-9-9 is a stepping stone to the FAIR Tax and Mr. Cain is supposedly planing to get the FAIR Tax instituted at some point during his administration.
Link (http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-herman-cain-leads-romney-by-16-percent/)
A poll released Monday shows Republican presidential candidate and former businessman Herman Cain leading former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 16 percentage points.
Cain 32 percent
Romney 16 percent.
Undecided 15 percent
Perry 12 percent.
Gingrich 8 percent
Paul 6 percent
Bachmann 6 percent
Someone not listed 4 percent
Huntsman 1 percent
Link (http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-herman-cain-leads-romney-by-16-percent/)
A poll released Monday shows Republican presidential candidate and former businessman Herman Cain leading former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 16 percentage points.
Cain 32 percent
Romney 16 percent.
Undecided 15 percent
Perry 12 percent.
Gingrich 8 percent
Paul 6 percent
Bachmann 6 percent
Someone not listed 4 percent
Huntsman 1 percent
Some of these people need to get the hell out so we can put our money in the right places.
Just an innocent question here, are we looking to be overly critical of Cain's plan? I mean there is still going to have to be congressional approval on anything that gets proposed, so, could some of the quirks be worked out at that time? I mean it seems like we may be replicating the sins of the Left as it pertains to how we let them destroy the Ryan Plan. Having offered a plan that is 90% good should still be better than attacking it which can only benefit those who want to see it or the person who proposed it destroyed. Do I have a point? Questions I have, but I am not willing to throw a candidate on the fire if I like 90% of the rest he has to offer, especially when I consider what the alternative might be!
"We anticipated that attack, but I didn't tell them how I was going to fix it yet," Cain, a former pizza executive from Georgia, told Republicans on Wednesday in Las Vegas. "I wanted to wait until I get attacked on that for a while. We already have a plan for that. ... We're not going to throw the people at the poverty level under the bus."
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_knew_conservatives_loved_the_irs.html)QuoteIf there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm. Who knew?
::clapping::
Here's some critical thinking. 45% of the country pays no income tax (and many of those receive "Earned Income Tax Credit"). For these voters, the Cain 9-9-9 appears to take their tax burden from zero (actually less than zero) to 9% income tax (if they work) plus 9% sales tax. That adds up to 18%. Seems this 45% of voters will be solidly behind Obama in 2012 from day one. Not a great way for Herman Cain to kick off his election campaign. The fact that Mr. Cain has never been elected to public office is not surprising. The 9-9-9 plan is probably the best news Obama has heard in quite some time.
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_knew_conservatives_loved_the_irs.html)QuoteIf there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm. Who knew?
That would be the Ruling Class types!
::gaah::
Who knew? We did/do and we know, as Libertas sez, who to blame.
That said, I don't want to be berated by the likes of Wright --
" ... when the dust settles, I am fully confident that 9-9-9 will at least pass muster on the cause of liberty and reduced government influence in our lives, if not on all the details."
--- for wanting "all the details". The days of passing the bill so we can know what's in it ARE GONE. It's our duty and responsibility and right to question until we're satisfied.
Just an innocent question here, are we looking to be overly critical of Cain's plan? I mean there is still going to have to be congressional approval on anything that gets proposed, so, could some of the quirks be worked out at that time? I mean it seems like we may be replicating the sins of the Left as it pertains to how we let them destroy the Ryan Plan. Having offered a plan that is 90% good should still be better than attacking it which can only benefit those who want to see it or the person who proposed it destroyed. Do I have a point? Questions I have, but I am not willing to throw a candidate on the fire if I like 90% of the rest he has to offer, especially when I consider what the alternative might be!
Food for thought for those who are promoting a brand new "consumption" tax as just dandy.I guarantee my employer won't give me a nickel of the savings.
There are also assumptions that the decreased payroll taxes will be actually applied to people's salaries, aka "take home pay." You do realize that for people who have health insurance through their employers, a lot of their "income" is HIDDEN IN THOSE BENEFITS? Then there is another assumption, which is that the decreased corporate taxes will result in a decrease in the prices of goods, which will MORE THAN offset the sales tax. Excuse me for being skeptical of both these assumptions. Simplified explanations of how this plan would work, and assumptions based on other assumptions of what it would lead to don't cut it.
Just an innocent question here, are we looking to be overly critical of Cain's plan? I mean there is still going to have to be congressional approval on anything that gets proposed, so, could some of the quirks be worked out at that time? I mean it seems like we may be replicating the sins of the Left as it pertains to how we let them destroy the Ryan Plan. Having offered a plan that is 90% good should still be better than attacking it which can only benefit those who want to see it or the person who proposed it destroyed. Do I have a point? Questions I have, but I am not willing to throw a candidate on the fire if I like 90% of the rest he has to offer, especially when I consider what the alternative might be!
I'm sorry, but if the plan is not worthy of such criticism, then why would it need a lot of tweaking of the quirks!
I would like nothing better than to get rid of the current tax code, as we know it, and start from scratch with a brand new one. But the only thing that I could see that could possibly be implemented is a flat tax, and that will impact "the poor." The things the Feds are financing are ubiquitous and pervasive. I really think that the assumption that this plan could possibly be implemented in place of all other federal taxes is very naive.
Completely revamping the tax code will impact so many things! We have to face facts, and be able to DEFEND what we are promoting, not just sit and nod our heads in agreement with 90%.
I think you completely misunderstood my point. My point was not to criticize what you said, but to clarify why I think it's not a good idea to just give Cain a "pass" on this, because we agree with 90% of what he says.
What I am hearing is though is the same crap we let the Left get away with over the Ryan Plan, it's just damn good fun to attack someone else's plan, especially when you have no plan of your own. Why are we giving the other candidates a free pass? What is being ignored in this whole thing is "which one of these people has a better plan"? If this is the field, ya gotta pick someone. Who you gonna pick?
QuoteFood for thought for those who are promoting a brand new "consumption" tax as just dandy.I guarantee my employer won't give me a nickel of the savings.
There are also assumptions that the decreased payroll taxes will be actually applied to people's salaries, aka "take home pay." You do realize that for people who have health insurance through their employers, a lot of their "income" is HIDDEN IN THOSE BENEFITS? Then there is another assumption, which is that the decreased corporate taxes will result in a decrease in the prices of goods, which will MORE THAN offset the sales tax. Excuse me for being skeptical of both these assumptions. Simplified explanations of how this plan would work, and assumptions based on other assumptions of what it would lead to don't cut it.
When I went off the company health plan, he refused to share any portion of the savings
I do think there is a good possibility that prices will fall.
Not necessarily out of altruism but competiton
Sorry if I ruffled feathers, that is not my intent, and I am not saying questions cannot be raised, but I get frustrated when it appears to me, just my opinion, the others get a pass because they have no plan. It seems like the process of feeding upon every wound takes precedence and makes it appear incredibly politically stupid to even attempt to offer a plan of any kind because of that certainty. It is no wonder we wind up with cookie-cutter candidates who speak in platitudes and generalities and end up disapointed when they get elected and try to translate slogans into policy only to discover people hate the present under the wrapping. If this debate exposes the ideas of the other contenders/pretenders then perhaps some good will come of it. As it stands I am not sure where we are headed with this group.
Sorry if I ruffled feathers, that is not my intent, and I am not saying questions cannot be raised, but I get frustrated when it appears to me, just my opinion, the others get a pass because they have no plan. It seems like the process of feeding upon every wound takes precedence and makes it appear incredibly politically stupid to even attempt to offer a plan of any kind because of that certainty. It is no wonder we wind up with cookie-cutter candidates who speak in platitudes and generalities and end up disapointed when they get elected and try to translate slogans into policy only to discover people hate the present under the wrapping. If this debate exposes the ideas of the other contenders/pretenders then perhaps some good will come of it. As it stands I am not sure where we are headed with this group.
I'm with Janny. It's taken me a little while to come around to it because I wanted to believe that there was a conservative among the candidates who could challenge Romney for the nomination. I won't write Cain off out of hand, and I don't think Janny's suggesting anyone should. But I think it does no service to conservatism or the nation if people fail to heed the warning flags that are being sent up about Herman Cain from his own mouth. It's up to him to put forward a candidacy worthy of support. All he's done since the spotlight has been on him because of 9-9-9 is send out conflicting signals that bring into question who he is, what he believes, and how equipped he is to be president.
It's up to him to clarify and rehabilitate his candidacy. He spent weeks asserting that 9-9-9 was vetted independently and that criticism of it was wrongheaded and based on non-factual analysis. Now at the first serious scrutiny, he's ready to cede that critics were right and put forward progressive elements to the plan?
Listen to your gut. This guy needs renewed scrutiny.
Yes, indeed. Prices may fall, but how do we know that they will fall enough to offset the tax?
Thanks Janny, hope we get to have a team we can coalesce around...I'd hate to see this opportunity screwed up. I've been saying quite a while now this may be our last chance to electorally effect positive direction for this nation.
Hey, I'll take the Manchurian Catidate, he cute! And he has no negatives (yet)!
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
;D
QuoteYes, indeed. Prices may fall, but how do we know that they will fall enough to offset the tax?
Even if prices don't fall, I've demonstrated up there in the thread that (at least to me) I will come out ahead
But, I do think a 9% corp tax rate will help with competitiveness and could possibly help re-shoring of some companies
The devil is in the details and it will depend on what a business is able to deduct as to whether there actually is a savings
Additionally, getting rid of the IRS and the social engineering in the existing tax code is a big plus.
But, I would like to see it properly vetted,too
Janny, I don't think this is a spending bill, just a revenue bill.
I don't see how this affects the states at all as far as their taxation
The states will still get the same amount of Fed $
Just an innocent question here, are we looking to be overly critical of Cain's plan? I mean there is still going to have to be congressional approval on anything that gets proposed, so, could some of the quirks be worked out at that time? I mean it seems like we may be replicating the sins of the Left as it pertains to how we let them destroy the Ryan Plan. Having offered a plan that is 90% good should still be better than attacking it which can only benefit those who want to see it or the person who proposed it destroyed. Do I have a point? Questions I have, but I am not willing to throw a candidate on the fire if I like 90% of the rest he has to offer, especially when I consider what the alternative might be!
I'm sorry, but if the plan is not worthy of such criticism, then why would it need a lot of tweaking of the quirks!
I would like nothing better than to get rid of the current tax code, as we know it, and start from scratch with a brand new one. But the only thing that I could see that could possibly be implemented is a flat tax, and that will impact "the poor." The things the Feds are financing are ubiquitous and pervasive. I really think that the assumption that this plan could possibly be implemented in place of all other federal taxes is very naive.
Completely revamping the tax code will impact so many things! We have to face facts, and be able to DEFEND what we are promoting, not just sit and nod our heads in agreement with 90%.
Janny....The clap wasn't directed at anyone here...it was directed at the cadidates....but after reading this post, you seem to want it both ways. You are defending the current system.
Janny....The clap wasn't directed at anyone here...it was directed at the cadidates....but after reading this post, you seem to want it both ways. You are defending the current system.
No. I am not defending the current system. I am pointing out how difficult it is going to be to be to make drastic changes in it. Those are two very different things.
It is Cain who wants it "both ways." He wants people to accept something drastically new, without answering questions about how it will actually work.
and his flailing attempts to answer them don't pass the sniff test, he bails on the main selling point of the plan, and makes it a progressive tax, claiming that it was his plan all along to let criticism reach a certain point and then unveil the "details".
Herman's tweet from 12 hours ago.
@THEHermanCain The road to renewal begins with opportunity zones!
Herman's tweet from 12 hours ago.
@THEHermanCain The road to renewal begins with opportunity zones!
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa35/JannyMae/Smileys/bill_the_cat.gif)
The Fair Tax is on it's way and endorsed by Steve Forbes.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/flat-tax-a-gamble-for-perry-cain/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/flat-tax-a-gamble-for-perry-cain/)
And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry’s plan, left little doubt that he’ll formally back the Texas governor before long.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry’s proposal,announced in a speech Wednesday, “the most exciting tax plan since Reagan’s,” in 1980.
That’s correct. Herman Cain announced that his signature “9-9-9“ plan is actually a ”9-0-9” plan — at least when it comes to the nation’s poor. Cain, who has accused critics of never having read his 9-9-9 plan through to completion, insisted the 9-0-9 provisions of his plan have been included in his campaign literature all along.
Speaking at the Michigan Central Station in downtown Detroit — where the unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation — Cain announced his proposal to create “opportunity zones” in the country’s inner cities.
“If you’re at or below the poverty level, your plan isn’t ‘9-9-9,’” Cain said to the crowd.
“It’s ‘9-zero-9.’ Say ‘Amen,‘ y’all! In other words, if you are at or below the poverty level based upon family size, because there’s a different number for each one, then you don’t pay that middle ‘9? tax on your income. This is how we help the poor.”
Cain’s announcement reportedly comes on the heels of a study released by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, which concluded the 9-9-9 would increase taxes by more than 900 percent on U.S. households earning between $10,000 and $20,000 annually.
Fox News adds:
A day earlier, Fox News had exclusively reported that Cain’s opportunity zone proposal is stirring displeasure among leaders of organized labor. Although he did not dwell on this during his appearance in Detroit, Cain insists that those areas that wish to qualify as an opportunity zone must eliminate what the campaign calls “barriers” to economic growth.
Examples of how to do that, as provided by campaign sources, include a number of steps considered anathema to Big Labor. They include the abolition of the minimum wage; the institution of school choice for parents; and the establishment of “right to work” conditions, which allow workers to refuse to join unions in unionized workplaces.
“It’s tough to take anything like that seriously,” AFL-CIO President richard Trumka told Fox News. “Look, workers are working hard and their wages have stagnated. To have Herman Cain, a serious contender on the Republican side, make a statement like that – that he wants to further lower wages, he wants to do away with the minimum wage – it’s almost laughable.”
Even Teamsters President James Hoffa weighed in, stating:
“Herman Cain‘s ’opportunity zones’ appear to be an opportunity for corporate America to exploit workers and turn the United States into a third-world country.”
A reduced rate (but not zero, perhaps only 7% for two years and then 8%, wouldn't bother me to much if certain conditions are met within the "zone". Has to be spelled out and the perk ended within a four year span.
Government, not the people would have to qualify the zone by a reduction in their spending budgets. This simple condition would reduce the burden on the businesses that would relocate to the zone. As it stands, they'd merely get a revenue boost that accompanies a boost in business and spend everylast penny making it just another stream to be tapped. We've seen it before and it will happen again and again if we cannot get local govts. to restrain themselves. The DemoRats will just use the stream in the exact same manner as before to get elected and give themselves bennys. The circle must stop.
Not being one of "the poor", perhaps I have a biased point of view (Noooooo! say is isn't so!), but, why does it seem everything is done to either accommodate "the poor" or punish "the rich" instead of for the benefit of the majority? Mark Levin hit on this the other day and it resonated strongly. Almost 50% pay no Federal income tax, which is ridiculous; we're expected to believe almost half the country is nearly destitute enough to require "assistance" and any move to dispel the notion that everyone ought to pay something engenders calls of "regressive taxation".
What is regressive about everyone having some skin in the game.
The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. Since 1926, the United States Code has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.link
The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 24 megabytes in length, and contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages.link (http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/)
Ever read the actual Tax Code? It's part of the United States Code.QuoteThe United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. Since 1926, the United States Code has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.link
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/)QuoteThe complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 24 megabytes in length, and contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages.link (http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/)
It's really a set of definitions with what seems like endless exceptions.
Define income. Seems easy. Until someone asks "Is this income?"
Define who must pay and who is exempt.
Being able to navigate around dependent clauses and parentheticals and understanding the word except is a huge help in researching the beast.
I'm not sure modifying it will be much help. Personally, I'd like to scrape the whole thing and just start over by defining how much money we need to raise every year to pay for those things we Constitutionally must fund. But that ain't happening. But even if we start over the same problem will occur. Define income.
I'm leaning toward a flat tax at this point. Would this by necessity retain the IRS? Arrrggggghhhhh.
QuoteI'm leaning toward a flat tax at this point. Would this by necessity retain the IRS? Arrrggggghhhhh.
Yes Pandora - a FLAT Tax would, by necessity, keep the IRS in place. There is only one tax scheme out there that REPLACES the IRS and that is the FAIR Tax.
So, even the fair tax would not eliminate an IRS-type entity, in order to accommodate "those in poverty" so they aren't "overly burdened."
The best thing to do, at this point, in my opinion, is to keep the IRS in place, for the time being, but greatly simplify the tax code, with a flat tax.
BUT.....if tax reform is not accompanied by some sort of reining in of federal spending, we might as well not bother, because it's just going to be more of the same redistribution with another tax system funding it.
"The best thing to do, at this point, in my opinion, is to keep the IRS in place, for the time being, but greatly simplify the tax code, with a flat tax."
Not to pick at you......LOL.....So you are in favor of the current system....LOL
I find the conversation interesting to say the least. We hate the current tax system but will sleep with the beast if we can only make a small change or two, while maligning a plan which would greatly reduce the beasts power because we may keep an empowerment zone.Again, you are putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing what I've said. I'm maligning a plan that has no chance of passing through congress. The plan has no way to "reduce the beast's power" if it won't get enacted.
"The best thing to do, at this point, in my opinion, is to keep the IRS in place, for the time being, but greatly simplify the tax code, with a flat tax."
Not to pick at you......LOL.....So you are in favor of the current system....LOL
Excuse me, but that's exactly what you are trying to do, is PICK AT ME.
The current system is not based on a flat tax. The flat tax would vastly change the current system, so your allegation that I am in favor of the current system is quite dishonest and absolutely ridiculous.
QuoteI find the conversation interesting to say the least. We hate the current tax system but will sleep with the beast if we can only make a small change or two, while maligning a plan which would greatly reduce the beasts power because we may keep an empowerment zone.Again, you are putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing what I've said. I'm maligning a plan that has no chance of passing through congress. The plan has no way to "reduce the beast's power" if it won't get enacted.
Nice try, though.
Excuse me...but you did state to keep the IRS in place. If you believe the current system, all 7500 pages, could implement a flat tax you are being dishonest with yourself.
The various calls to revamp the nation’s highly complex tax code were joined by a significant new voice on Wednesday — the I.R.S.’s own taxpayer advocate, who urged that the system be rewritten for the first time in a generation.
Nina E. Olson, the national tax advocate who acts as an ombudsman for the I.R.S., issued a sweeping criticism of federal tax policy in her annual report to Congress. Ms. Olson found that the volume of the tax code had nearly tripled in size during the last decade — to 3.8 million words in February 2010 from 1.4 million in 2001. She estimated that Americans spent 6.1 billion hours preparing their returns each year — the equivalent of 3 million employees working full time. By comparison, the federal payroll has 2.1 million full-time workers.
The byzantine tax regulations also deprived the government of revenue by causing accidental underpayments and encouraging cheating, the report concluded, stating that the most practical remedy would be for Congress to scrap the existing code, which was last overhauled in 1986.
“The time for tax reform and tax simplification is now,” Ms. Olson said.
While the report amplifies many frequently voiced criticisms, and is likely to be welcomed by many of the tax critics who ignited the Tea Party movement, most policy experts consider it unlikely that the federal government will take up the issue before the 2012 presidential election.
Howard Gleckman, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center, has said that neither President Obama nor Congress has shown any eagerness to confront the combination of spending cuts and rate increases that would be needed to address the budget deficit.
Still, the fact that the I.R.S.’s own internal watchdog concedes that the federal tax system has become unmanageable underscores the severity of the problem.
Excuse me...but you did state to keep the IRS in place. If you believe the current system, all 7500 pages, could implement a flat tax you are being dishonest with yourself.
I didn't realize that the entire existence of IRS is completely dependent on keeping the exact same TAX CODE that we have now. Keeping the IRS in place WHILE making DRASTIC changes to the tax code do not equal "keeping the current system."
I thought I was pretty clear on what I was saying. I do not favor keeping the TAX CODE as it is.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I'm saying is getting tiresome.
Perhaps we can all agree that the IRS must go. Yes?
And whether under Cain's 9-9-9 or some other simplified tax plan, a new (tiny!) government agency responsible for collection could be had. Just as long as the bloody IRS is utterely wiped out along with the old tax code!
Perhaps we can all agree that the IRS must go. Yes?
And whether under Cain's 9-9-9 or some other simplified tax plan, a new (tiny!) government agency responsible for collection could be had. Just as long as the bloody IRS is utterely wiped out along with the old tax code!
I don't want the IRS in charge of any plan. I sure as hell don't want to implement something different, give up deductions and find our blessed gov't raises the flat tax because they can't control spending.
It's why I'll support the 999 plan (at this time), even with its imperfections. If it is a plan that severly reduces or eliminates the IRS, while simplifying tax collection, we can work around the nuances and make corrections.
Changing the tax code will be a monster. Abolishing the IRS is virtually insurmountable.
It is one of the largest bureaucracies and they have every body's file.
Three presidents have tried to eliminate the BATF and not succeeded.
Heard a bit of an interview with Steve Wynn, the casino owner, he talked to his representative
and she said she understood, her husband was a doctor but if she didn't vote "right" she would
be punished.
He also talked to Harry Reid who he contributed to, before the conversation was over Harry
hung up on him.
He said Americans need to wake up and realize what's going on.