Herman Cain Nine, Nine, Nine

[Poke]

Mr Cain has proposed his 9, 9, 9 solution.
9% personal income tax.
9% corporate income tax.
9% national sales tax.

It is an interesting proposal. It seems to be a radical deviation from the current tax policy. The current tax policy is not working to sustain the federal government. Let me break down each component from my point of view.

9% Personal income tax.
That would be a lesser rate than I pay today (include his 9% sales tax and I am still personally doing better). Today, almost 50% of people that file a tax return pay 0 taxes. If they file a tax return, that means they had income of some sort. If we put a flat 9% rate on every dollar earned (no deductions, none) then that means everybody has skin in the game. I don't care if you make $500,000 or $500, pay your 9%. Simple tax code. If you want to pay less in taxes, then earn less. Don't punish achievement by taxing it more.

9% corporate income tax.
Economics 101 states that companies don't really pay taxes. They merely collect taxes from their customers. If you don't believe me, then answer this simple question, What if the government raised all business taxes to 90%, do you think the price of goods and services would rise?
I'm not a fool, I don't think that an instant reduction in corporate tax rates would result in an instant reduction in the price of goods or services, but I do know that a raise in corporate taxes would instantly result in a price increase. A lower corporate tax rate would result in a competitive advantage that would make it beneficial for companies to be in the USA as opposed to other countries.

9% national sales tax.
I'm not willing to subject myself to a national sales tax unless my income taxes are reduced. Currently, there is a lot of "underground" business. Those that are employed in the hidden economy don't pay income tax. They are varied in employment, drug dealers, the neighbor that mows my yard, the guy that fixes your computer off the books, or your neighbor that works on your car for $50 just to name a few. None of them pay tax on that income, but they all buy stuff. A national sales tax would harness the monies from the "underground economy" that currently escapes paying income tax.

Lastly, I would require the government to live within their means. The federal budget must not be larger than the taxes collected.

[darin]

That Federal Sales tax would make those in Seattle pay 18% sales tax, total. My area would be about 15% total sales tax. That's terrible. That's canadian-type tax oppression.

Taxes could be lower because the gov't would shrink by thousands and thousands of IRS folk.

[Poke]

That Federal Sales tax would make those in Seattle pay 18% sales tax, total. My area would be about 15% total sales tax. That's terrible. That's canadian-type tax oppression.

Taxes could be lower because the gov't would shrink by thousands and thousands of IRS folk.
The position is 9% federal income tax and 9% federal sales tax. It has nothing to do with state taxes. You are free to address your state taxes as you see fit.

[J.T]

So he wants to slash taxes and impose a national regressive tax?

This will pay for our continued occupation Iraq and Afghanistan, the massive military-industrial complex, and the bombing of Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan?

[Poke]

So he wants to slash taxes and impose a national regressive tax?

This will pay for our continued occupation Iraq and Afghanistan, the massive military-industrial complex, and the bombing of Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan?

Taxes and war are two entirely different things. Let's be mature enough to not intertwine the two as if they are mutually dependent.

What do you think is regressive about everybody paying taxes as opposed to just some paying taxes?

[J.T]

Taxes and war are two entirely different things.

No, they're not. Unless he's proposing that we pull every last one of our troops out over the course of one week beginning the hour he's sworn in and do away with half of the rest of government, any proposal regarding taxes must be crafted with the necessity to fund government expenditures in mind. Why are there no numbers regarding the revenue this would bring in? Any expenditures he's willing to continue, including the bloated military, must be paid for by the revenue system he proposes if he wants to be taken seriously on any fiscal issues.

It's also hard to take you seriously if you have no concept of marginal utility.

[Poke]

No, they're not. Unless he's proposing that we pull every last one of our troops out over the course of one week beginning the hour he's sworn in and do away with half of the rest of government, any proposal regarding taxes must be crafted with the necessity to fund government expenditures in mind. Why are there no numbers regarding the revenue this would bring in? Any expenditures he's willing to continue, including the bloated military, must be paid for by the revenue system he proposes if he wants to be taken seriously on any fiscal issues.

It's also hard to take you seriously if you have no concept of marginal utility.

My entire post was this,

Taxes and war are two entirely different things. Let's be mature enough to not intertwine the two as if they are mutually dependent.

What do you think is regressive about everybody paying taxes as opposed to just some paying taxes?
All you quoted was this,

Taxes and war are two entirely different things.
with this as the first sentence of your reply,

No, they're not.
Actually, taxes and war really are two different things. Your failure to comprehend that makes it difficult for me to rebut your post when it is predicated upon the false understanding that you hold.

Now then, would you care to address my question,

What do you think is regressive about everybody paying taxes as opposed to just some paying taxes?
or should I just pass you off as another internet entity that wants to divert every subject into a "I want to discuss Bush's war's" kind of fellow rather than the actual subject matter of the OP?

[J.T]

As I said: Any expenditures he's willing to continue, including the bloated military, must be paid for by the revenue system he proposes if he wants to be taken seriously on any fiscal issues.

You ignored that point in order to play your childish games. Now address the matter at hand: would his proposal raise all the revenue necessary to pay for every expenditure he's willing to continue, including any and all military spending he's not calling for cutting?

[Poke]

As I said: Any expenditures he's willing to continue, including the bloated military, must be paid for by the revenue system he proposes if he wants to be taken seriously on any fiscal issues.

You ignored that point in order to play your childish games. Now address the matter at hand: would his proposal raise all the revenue necessary to pay for every expenditure he's willing to continue, including any and all military spending he's not calling for cutting?
Please go re-read the OP.
It wasn't about paying for things that you find offensive, it was about taxation, if that makes me childish, so be it.


or should I just pass you off as another internet entity that wants to divert every subject into a "I want to discuss Bush's war's" kind of fellow rather than the actual subject matter of the OP?
JT, your answer is loud and clear to the question you offered, but you still haven't answered the question I asked.
Let me remind you once more (not that I think you will be more willing to address the actual subject matter as you seem intent upon trying to turn this thread into a discussion about spending as opposed to taxing),

What do you think is regressive about everybody paying taxes as opposed to just some paying taxes?

[J.T]

It wasn't about paying for things

Taxation is all about paying for things. The reason we have taxes in the first place is to raise revenue to fund government expenditures. You cannot discuss tax policies without addressing their effect on revenues and also addressing expenditures.

And I answered your question a long time ago. Once again, if you have no concept of marginal utility, it's impossible to take you seriously in any such discussion.

[darin]

The position is 9% federal income tax and 9% federal sales tax. It has nothing to do with state taxes. You are free to address your state taxes as you see fit.

Okay, i'll try again, as if explaining to my nine year old.

If the FEDS introduce a FED sales tax, that will go ON TOP of the tax we pay by county or state. The reason I don't like a FED sales tax is because it makes my TOTAL sales tax that much higher - and there is NO visible return on investment.

My 9 year old son SERIOUSLY understood when I told him that yesterday. Will you?

[chloe]

If you flip his plan 9=9=9 upside down it's 6-6-6 :poke:

[Psychoblues]

Okay, i'll try again, as if explaining to my nine year old.

If the FEDS introduce a FED sales tax, that will go ON TOP of the tax we pay by county or state. The reason I don't like a FED sales tax is because it makes my TOTAL sales tax that much higher - and there is NO visible return on investment.

My 9 year old son SERIOUSLY understood when I told him that yesterday. Will you?

Liar, liar, pants on fire, nose as long as a telephone wire. Your 9 year old kid has no clue as to the complexities of Keynsian nor Weber economic theories, dimples. Your exaggeration is only an extension of your deficient life. Get a freaking grip, cowgirl.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

That Federal Sales tax would make those in Seattle pay 18% sales tax, total. My area would be about 15% total sales tax. That's terrible. That's canadian-type tax oppression.

Taxes could be lower because the gov't would shrink by thousands and thousands of IRS folk.

For what its worth, he did include income tax cuts too. The nice thing about that is it would provide a consistent incentive for advancement for all people, especially through the middle class; you'd know what you are going to pay in income tax all along-- way more efficient. I like sales taxes too, because sales tax hits everybody-- Don't like paying taxes, buy less. Pretty simple. Way better than the current means of paying less in taxes-- lobby for loopholes, use creative accounting or stay below the income threshold.

But that 'govt would shrink' thing would make it nearly impossible to pass. Great idea, but I doubt it would ever happen.

[logroller]

... has no clue as to the complexities of Keynsian nor Weber economic theories...

No arguments there.

[darin]

Liar, liar, pants on fire, nose as long as a telephone wire. Your 9 year old kid has no clue as to the complexities of Keynsian nor Weber economic theories, dimples. Your exaggeration is only an extension of your deficient life. Get a freaking grip, cowgirl.

Psychoblues

My son said "Dad, is that guy on the internet drunk?" when I showed him your post.

i'm sorry you feel threatened by my son. He gets it when I say 'stacking taxes means we lose more money to a govt who has no clue how to spend it effectively'.

You don't. Don't take it out on my 9-year-old kid.

[Gunny]

My son said "Dad, is that guy on the internet drunk?" when I showed him your post.

i'm sorry you feel threatened by my son. He gets it when I say 'stacking taxes means we lose more money to a govt who has no clue how to spend it effectively'.

You don't. Don't take it out on my 9-year-old kid.

Nice.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Okay, i'll try again, as if explaining to my nine year old.

If the FEDS introduce a FED sales tax, that will go ON TOP of the tax we pay by county or state. The reason I don't like a FED sales tax is because it makes my TOTAL sales tax that much higher - and there is NO visible return on investment.

My 9 year old son SERIOUSLY understood when I told him that yesterday. Will you?

You're not accounting for the reduction in income taxes. TOTAL taxes depends on your situation which is the bad part of the plan as it contains zero assurance of progressivity. Though I did hear him yesterday say that his plan was a interim measure until the FairTax could be implemented.

[logroller]

You're not accounting for the reduction in income taxes. TOTAL taxes depends on your situation which is the bad part of the plan as it contains zero assurance of progressivity. Though I did hear him yesterday say that his plan was a interim measure until the FairTax could be implemented.

TOTAL taxes are always dependent on your situation--progressive, flat or regressive--the difference being how such taxes affect spending, investment and the pursuit of higher earnings. IMO, the 'bad thing' would be the likely decrease in consumer spending as a result; though I think this would be a short-term concern, as people would adjust. I think investment would rise though; that's a good thing.:thumb:

[darin]

You're not accounting for the reduction in income taxes. TOTAL taxes depends on your situation which is the bad part of the plan as it contains zero assurance of progressivity. Though I did hear him yesterday say that his plan was a interim measure until the FairTax could be implemented.

You're right - I hadn't thought about that. It's the pain-at-the-pump thing, I guess.

[Missileman]

You're not accounting for the reduction in income taxes. TOTAL taxes depends on your situation which is the bad part of the plan as it contains zero assurance of progressivity. Though I did hear him yesterday say that his plan was a interim measure until the FairTax could be implemented.

It absolutely assures progessivity. If you make 50K, you pay $4500...if you earn 500K, $45000. Works the same with buying things. The wealthy will still pay more in taxes than the lower income earners.

[avatar4321]

Im not sold on this tax plan. I dont like adding a national sales tax. And I thought his answer during the debate on why a post-Cain Presidency couldnt just raise it was unconvincing.

Let's just have 9% straight income tax. No deductions. It makes things far easier.

[Missileman]

Im not sold on this tax plan. I dont like adding a national sales tax. And I thought his answer during the debate on why a post-Cain Presidency couldnt just raise it was unconvincing.

Let's just have 9% straight income tax. No deductions. It makes things far easier.

We need a national sales tax so that those who don't file tax returns (drug dealers, hookers, illegals, and anyone working under the table) wind up contributing to revenues.

[Abbey Marie]

Generally speaking, I prefer to keep more of what I earn, and take a hit at the cash register instead. As long as food is exempt. I can always choose to not buy something if the sales tax is high, but getting back the outrageous tax on my income is a bear.

[fj1200]

It absolutely assures progessivity. If you make 50K, you pay $4500...if you earn 500K, $45000. Works the same with buying things. The wealthy will still pay more in taxes than the lower income earners.

That's not progressive. Progressive is paying a higher rate not just more because you make more. And a sales tax CAN be regressive and would be for some because there is no assurance that the rich are automatically going to buy enough more than the poor for it to be progressive. That's about my only complaint with the FairTax although the FT includes the prebate which counters that to some extent.

[Missileman]

That's not progressive. Progressive is paying a higher rate not just more because you make more. And a sales tax CAN be regressive and would be for some because there is no assurance that the rich are automatically going to buy enough more than the poor for it to be progressive. That's about my only complaint with the FairTax although the FT includes the prebate which counters that to some extent.

IMO, it's progressive in that not everyone pays the same amount of tax to receive the benefit of government...and I use the term benefit loosely. I realize that given the size and scope of the govt, there's no way you could "divide the check" equally among each citizen, but again IMO, that would be the fairest system.

Access to too much money has also contributed to the DC idiots excessive spending habits.

[fj1200]

Well, progressivity is usually defined as those with higher incomes paying a higher rate and I'm generally not opposed to some progressivity. A single rate for all with a significant standard deduction would be progressive enough for me and ideal.

And "DC idiots" is a whole different thing. :laugh:

[Psychoblues]

My son said "Dad, is that guy on the internet drunk?" when I showed him your post.

i'm sorry you feel threatened by my son. He gets it when I say 'stacking taxes means we lose more money to a govt who has no clue how to spend it effectively'.

You don't. Don't take it out on my 9-year-old kid.

You brought your kid into this conversation and to this board, dumbo dimples. I can guarantee you that he has no clue as to any economic theories beyond possibly the price of a popsicle but I doubt even that. And you lie once more indicating that the kid made some remark as to any intoxication of me or anyone else based on whatever post you may have shown him. The liar, liar pants on fire remark remains true for you. There are simply no other explanations for your nonsensical narratives.

As far as the kid is concerned, dumbo dimples, I mean absolutely nothing personal for or against him or even towards him in any way. I love all kids and I always resent the hell out of jerkwad parents trying to excuse or blame their own total ignorance by exploiting the total innocence of their children for their own evil and misguided purposes. Tsk, tsk. There ought to be a special place in hell for jerkwads like you.

I got your neg rep. Are you implying that your prior remark to me wasn't a total flame? You are indeed one of the most unthinking and inconsistent "managers" I have ever run across. When you can't be depended on for the truth then what good are you for the ebb and flow of a small time message board operation? My opinions remain as valid as your own and my observations remain as truthful as I can relate them quite unlike the tall tales you tell and that's a shame.

Psychoblues

[darin]

You brought your kid into this conversation and to this board, dumbo dimples. I can guarantee you that he has no clue as to any economic theories beyond possibly the price of a popsicle but I doubt even that. And you lie once more indicating that the kid made some remark as to any intoxication of me or anyone else based on whatever post you may have shown him. The liar, liar pants on fire remark remains true for you. There are simply no other explanations for your nonsensical narratives.

Okay, will reduce it from how I explained 'stacking taxes' to my 9 year old, and I will reply to YOU as if you were intellectually 4 or 5.

"PB - see, My son understands putting one thing on top of another thing makes it twice as tall! See, if I stack a choo-choo on top of another choo-choo, I'd have TWICE the choo-choo train. It's like that with TAXES! Here's another example - If I give you a juice box, you can't have the juice box until I take a sip. That sip is like 'tax'. When we add MORE 'tax' it's like taking more sips!"

Do you get it now? is that CLEAR enough?



As far as the kid is concerned, dumbo dimples, I mean absolutely nothing personal for or against him or even towards him in any way. I love all kids and I always resent the hell out of jerkwad parents trying to excuse or blame their own total ignorance by exploiting the total innocence of their children for their own evil and misguided purposes. Tsk, tsk. There ought to be a special place in hell for jerkwads like you.

What the fuck are you talking about?



I got your neg rep. Are you implying that your prior remark to me wasn't a total flame? You are indeed one of the most unthinking and inconsistent "managers" I have ever run across. When you can't be depended on for the truth then what good are you for the ebb and flow of a small time message board operation? My opinions remain as valid as your own and my observations remain as truthful as I can relate them quite unlike the tall tales you tell and that's a shame.

Psychoblues

And you'll get ANOTHER for this post because you aren't debating ANYTHING, you are simply using the 'reply' button as an excuse to flame, insult, or otherwise through shit my direction.

[Psychoblues]

Okay, will reduce it from how I explained 'stacking taxes' to my 9 year old, and I will reply to YOU as if you were intellectually 4 or 5.

"PB - see, My son understands putting one thing on top of another thing makes it twice as tall! See, if I stack a choo-choo on top of another choo-choo, I'd have TWICE the choo-choo train. It's like that with TAXES! Here's another example - If I give you a juice box, you can't have the juice box until I take a sip. That sip is like 'tax'. When we add MORE 'tax' it's like taking more sips!"

Do you get it now? is that CLEAR enough?



What the fuck are you talking about?



And you'll get ANOTHER for this post because you aren't debating ANYTHING, you are simply using the 'reply' button as an excuse to flame, insult, or otherwise through shit my direction.

Yep. I got it (the neg rep) and I maintain there ought to be a special place in hell for jerkwads like you. There isn't an ounce of honesty or intelligence in you.

The "reply" button serves a multitude of purposes. Being board management would you please explain your interpretations and rules as to how to use it and as always I will do my very best to comply. You are such a liar and a turd, dimples.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Yep. I got it (the neg rep) and I maintain there ought to be a special place in hell for jerkwads like you. There isn't an ounce of honesty or intelligence in you.

The "reply" button serves a multitude of purposes. Being board management would you please explain your interpretations and rules as to how to use it and as always I will do my very best to comply. You are such a liar and a turd, dimples.

Psychoblues

You think a poster should go to hell for neg repping you? LOL That might be the ultimate neg rep whine right there.

Oh and one more thing, DMP has every right to post as a poster even though his name is red. Why you suggest otherwise is just baffling.


I guess it's 5 o'clock somewhere eh?

[Psychoblues]

You think a poster should go to hell for neg repping you? LOL That might be the ultimate neg rep whine right there.

Oh and one more thing, DMP has every right to post as a poster even though his name is red. Why you suggest otherwise is just baffling.


I guess it's 5 o'clock somewhere eh?

Fuck you, ch. It should have been a private conversation but dimples chose to open it to the board. He's a fuckin' idiot. The special place in hell? You don't read well, do you? He brought his kid in to this conversation and on to this board. That by itself is the unforgivable sin worthy of the hellfire that I speak of. But, there are others, indeed. God hates hypocrites as much as any thief, murderer or rapist.

I've never questioned the right of dimples or anyone else to post here. Why do you make an argument when there is none? Still baffled? From my viewpoint I can't tell whether it's educational, intellectual or medical. You'll have to get whatever help you find appropriate for yourself.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Fuck you, ch. It should have been a private conversation but dimples chose to open it to the board. He's a fuckin' idiot. The special place in hell? You don't read well, do you? He brought his kid in to this conversation and on to this board. That by itself is the unforgivable sin worthy of the hellfire that I speak of. But, there are others, indeed. God hates hypocrites as much as any thief, murderer or rapist.

I've never questioned the right of dimples or anyone else to post here. Why do you make an argument when there is none? Still baffled? From my viewpoint I can't tell whether it's educational, intellectual or medical. You'll have to get whatever help you find appropriate for yourself.

Psychoblues




Perhaps if I get as drunk as you obviously are your posts will start making more sense to me, but I value my liver too much for that.

[Psychoblues]

Perhaps if I get as drunk as you obviously are your posts will start making more sense to me, but I value my liver too much for that.

I am indeed an admitted alcoholic but I am not drinking as of these postings. If ridiculing my alcoholism is all you have to defend your failures to comprehend the conversation then I genuinely feel sorry for you.

You make a lot of sense to me sometimes, ch, but right now you remind me of why I left the repubs in 1992. Way too much hate and shallowness for me to have to deal with.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

I am indeed an admitted alcoholic but I am not drinking as of these postings. If ridiculing my alcoholism is all you have to defend your failures to comprehend the conversation then I genuinely feel sorry for you.

You make a lot of sense to me sometimes, ch, but right now you remind me of why I left the repubs in 1992. Way too much hate and shallowness for me to have to deal with.

Psychoblues


I don't know why you would have left the Rep party over me , when I'm NOT a Republican. I am 100% independent, It is true that at the current time I believe the Democratic Party has lost its goddamned mind and so I won't be voting for any of their candidates I have in the past felt the same way about the Republican Party and I have often in the past voted for candidates from both parties for different positions in the same election cycle.

[darin]

Please no more off-topic replies; they will be deleted, and thread bans issued.

[darin]

PB removed from thread because he doesn't follow directions.

[SassyLady]

PB removed from thread because he doesn't follow directions.



They must have been too complex........................





...................except for a nine year old of course.