Herman Cain

[wiegie]

on the am radio version of Fox and Friends this morning, the host said that there is speculation that everybody voted for Cain as a protest vote against the rest of the GOP field rather than because they like Cain. Read into that (or not) whatever you want.

[Duchess Jack]

on the am radio version of Fox and Friends this morning, the host said that there is speculation that everybody voted for Cain as a protest vote against the rest of the GOP field rather than because they like Cain. Read into that (or not) whatever you want.

maybe their trying to discredit him (Fox) in the same way they try to discredit Ron Paul.

[detlef]

It's almost entirely tax cuts. Tax cuts to a level that would guarantee national bankruptcy.

 

 

Once again, no matter how nicely I attempt to reply to you, you have almost guaranteed this thread will be locked. Let's play nicely so that does not happen.

Ursa replying to someone other than you that he doesn't agree with a financial plan is not playing nice with you?

 

Could you break that down a little bit for me?

[SEC=UGA]

Ursa replying to someone other than you that he doesn't agree with a financial plan is not playing nice with you?

 

Could you break that down a little bit for me?

 

Yeah, I didn't get that response either.

 

Ursa is much more nasty to me, it breaks my heart, but he is.

[detlef]

Yeah, I didn't get that response either.

 

Ursa is much more nasty to me, it breaks my heart, but he is.

Freudian-alias-slip? Lady.hawke is from Sacto, the Grunt is a Niner fan. Just saying. I know that Brent/Sarge/whatever had a bad habit of getting into debates with people and forgetting who he was logged in as.

[Ursa Majoris]

Other than tax cuts, there isn't anything else in his plan. We could assume SS would be history because of the elimination of SS tax but perhaps not - it could be paid for out of the revenues gained from the new plan.

 

Still and all, let's assume for the sake of argument that Mr Cain's plan is revenue neutral, so all these tax cuts / eliminations for businesses, capital gains, etc etc have no effect on the revenue accrued by the government. Who is now paying the taxes that aren't being paid by the aforementioned people / corporations? Joe Schmoe.

 

This plan taxes every dime earned at 9% (there doesn't appear to be an income floor in the plan below which there are no taxes) and adds an additional 9% on everything purchased (there doesn't appear to be an exemption for food, etc).

 

Therefore the plan appears to be a massive shift of the tax burden to the poorer end of society, doesn't it?

[TheGrunt]

Freudian-alias-slip? Lady.hawke is from Sacto, the Grunt is a Niner fan. Just saying. I know that Brent/Sarge/whatever had a bad habit of getting into debates with people and forgetting who he was logged in as.

If you watch the forums long enough, you'll notice we're never logged in at the same time.

[TheGrunt]

Yeah, I didn't get that response either.

 

Ursa is much more nasty to me, it breaks my heart, but he is.

Bushwacked wouldn't give me a break even if I asked for it. Since my heart doesn't bleed or break, his nastiness to me makes it skip a beat. Kinda like when you have too much coffee.

[delusions of grandeur]

Yeah, I've really got faith that a former chairman of the Fed is going to change the status quo in Washington.

[WaterMan]

Yeah, I've really got faith that a former chairman of the Fed is going to change the status quo in Washington.

 

You should read what his stances are. He's just more of the same. He even is on public record on how afraid he is of Muslims.

[Lady.hawke]

Cain was never Chairman of the Fed. He was on a fed bank board I think in Kansas City. Big difference.

 

I like what The Grunt writes, but I have not noticed until a week ago.

[Perchoutofwater]

Of all the GOP hopefuls, Cain is my favorite. Neither Perry or Romney excite me. I don't see much difference in them and Shrub. Sure they would be better than Obama, but I don't see anything that suggests that either are willing to really try to tackle the problems that face us today. I like Paul's domestic policy well enough, but his foreign policy is nothing short of terrible. Newt and Bachman are better left where they are.

[Ursa Majoris]

Other than tax cuts, there isn't anything else in his plan. We could assume SS would be history because of the elimination of SS tax but perhaps not - it could be paid for out of the revenues gained from the new plan.

 

Still and all, let's assume for the sake of argument that Mr Cain's plan is revenue neutral, so all these tax cuts / eliminations for businesses, capital gains, etc etc have no effect on the revenue accrued by the government. Who is now paying the taxes that aren't being paid by the aforementioned people / corporations? Joe Schmoe.

 

This plan taxes every dime earned at 9% (there doesn't appear to be an income floor in the plan below which there are no taxes) and adds an additional 9% on everything purchased (there doesn't appear to be an exemption for food, etc).

 

Therefore the plan appears to be a massive shift of the tax burden to the poorer end of society, doesn't it?

Anyone want to comment on this? Is it a tax shift or not? If not, why not?

 

It just seems to me that it's not a plan (as opposed to the way Ryan's plan is a proper plan, whether one likes it or not) so much as a bunch of anti-tax feel-good sound bites without any real thought as to the consequences.

[Perchoutofwater]

Anyone want to comment on this? Is it a tax shift or not? If not, why not?

 

It just seems to me that it's not a plan (as opposed to the way Ryan's plan is a proper plan, whether one likes it or not) so much as a bunch of anti-tax feel-good sound bites without any real thought as to the consequences.

 

:nancypelosi: We have to pass it to find out what is in it. :/nancypelosi:

 

All kidding aside, I haven't looked at his tax plan in any great detail, and I would probably prefer the fair tax to it. Having said that assuming it is revenue neutral I don't have a problem with it. I think there does need to be somewhat of a shift, so that everyone is at least paying something. I'm a firm believer if everyone was really paying taxes then we'd have a lot less spending in Washington, and I for one think that is a good thing. I like the idea of everyone paying the same rate, that would be closer to equal taxation for equal representation. My concern with Cain's plan is that it has both an income tax and a sales tax. I am really not in favor of having both. The only way I could support a federal sales tax is to repeal the income tax by constitutional amendment. I'd prefer a sales tax without an income tax, as it would pick up most of the illegals not currently paying income tax. Having said all that I like that he is proposing something that will get the discussion started about real tax reform. I like that he is willing to look at alternatives to the current screwed up system.

 

I'm not going to kid myself and say Cain is a perfect candidate. I know that he is not. I don't think his plan is perfect, but I like that it is at least something to talk about. I doubt he could get it passed due to the dual nature of it's taxation. I don't think the majority of republicans would go for a sales tax as long as there is an income tax. Cain isn't perfect, but I find him refreshing. One of the things I like the most about him, is he doesn't seem like the typical politician. He seems to speak his mind. I may not always agree with what is on his mind, but I like know what it is.

[Ursa Majoris]

Putting some numbers around this, let's assume Joe Schmoe earns $20,000 / year. He pays 6.2% in SS tax and 1.45% in Medicare for a total of 7.65% or $1,530, leaving him with $18,470. I am not certain but I believe EITC will give him all that back and a tad more, thus he gets $20,000 + the residue from EITC.

 

Under Cain's system, the same guy gets 9% taken off his top line, so he loses $1,800 for a total of $18,200. Now, from the remaining money, all his purchases have an extra 9% added too.

 

While you can make a case for eliminating EITC over time, I can't see how the "Fair Tax" or "Flat Tax" is anything other than an attempt by supporters of it to pay less themselves. Are there any supporters who know they will pay more?

[Ursa Majoris]

Furthermore, with all the hugh fuss over adding 2% to the tax burden of wealthy people, why isn't the prospect of adding double digit taxes to poor people also causing a hugh fuss among the anti-tax brigade?

 

Is it because of the likely voting preferences of the two groups?

[Perchoutofwater]

Putting some numbers around this, let's assume Joe Schmoe earns $20,000 / year. He pays 6.2% in SS tax and 1.45% in Medicare for a total of 7.65% or $1,530, leaving him with $18,470. I am not certain but I believe EITC will give him all that back and a tad more, thus he gets $20,000 + the residue from EITC.

 

Under Cain's system, the same guy gets 9% taken off his top line, so he loses $1,800 for a total of $18,200. Now, from the remaining money, all his purchases have an extra 9% added too.

 

While you can make a case for eliminating EITC over time, I can't see how the "Fair Tax" or "Flat Tax" is anything other than an attempt by supporters of it to pay less themselves. Are there any supporters who know they will pay more?

 

As I have previously said I'm not all that up on Cain's plan, so I haven't determined whether I'd support it. The Fair Tax provides a rebate to everyone up to what ever the poverty line is, so basically if you are below the poverty line you are not paying any tax at all. You are only in effect paying tax when you purchase more goods than the poverty line. With regard to whether I would pay more, I don't know with Cain's plan, as I really haven't looked at it in detail. With the Fair Tax, some years I'd pay significantly more than I do now, and others I'd pay less. It would vary by year. With a flat tax it would really depend on which deductions were left in place, without knowing that there is really no way to answer your question.

 

 

Furthermore, with all the hugh fuss over adding 2% to the tax burden of wealthy people, why isn't the prospect of adding double digit taxes to poor people also causing a hugh fuss among the anti-tax brigade?

 

Is it because of the likely voting preferences of the two groups?

 

It is about fairness. I think everyone should pay at least some taxes. I don't like the idea of someone that doesn't pay taxes voting for people who spend our money. The "wealthy already pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. I'm not for raising the rate on the wealth at all, until everyone at least pays something in taxes.

[Ursa Majoris]

As I have previously said I'm not all that up on Cain's plan, so I haven't determined whether I'd support it. The Fair Tax provides a rebate to everyone up to what ever the poverty line is, so basically if you are below the poverty line you are not paying any tax at all. You are only in effect paying tax when you purchase more goods than the poverty line. With regard to whether I would pay more, I don't know with Cain's plan, as I really haven't looked at it in detail. With the Fair Tax, some years I'd pay significantly more than I do now, and others I'd pay less. It would vary by year. With a flat tax it would really depend on which deductions were left in place, without knowing that there is really no way to answer your question.

 

There is no visible floor to Cain's 9% tax and he specifically says no deductions to anyone / everyone.

 

 

It is about fairness. I think everyone should pay at least some taxes. I don't like the idea of someone that doesn't pay taxes voting for people who spend our money. The "wealthy already pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. I'm not for raising the rate on the wealth at all, until everyone at least pays something in taxes.

I'm not particularly interested in resurrecting this old argument again but reductio ad absurdum is sometimes a useful exercise to conduct. It is absurd to think that one person would hold all the nation's entire wealth but if that did happen, what proportion of all taxes would that person pay? Answer: 100%.

 

Therefore, claiming that a small number of rich people pay the most taxes as a percentage of all taxes is a spurious and ultimately self-defeating argument - it is BECAUSE they have an increasingly large proportion of the national wealth that they pay a large proportion of the taxes.

 

That aside, prices are set to what the market will bear, so how are people already just scratching out an existence supposed to cope with a further reduction in their post-tax disposable income as well as all purchases having 9% added? "It's not fair" is supposed to be a leftist liberal bleat, not a conservative one, so it's really amusing (or it would be if it wasn't so sad) to see conservatives pointing at the poor and calling them "lucky duckies" because they have insufficient income to be able to pay tax. Good grief.

[Perchoutofwater]

There is no visible floor to Cain's 9% tax and he specifically says no deductions to anyone / everyone.

 

 

 

I'm not particularly interested in resurrecting this old argument again but reductio ad absurdum is sometimes a useful exercise to conduct. It is absurd to think that one person would hold all the nation's entire wealth but if that did happen, what proportion of all taxes would that person pay? Answer: 100%.

 

Therefore, claiming that a small number of rich people pay the most taxes as a percentage of all taxes is a spurious and ultimately self-defeating argument - it is BECAUSE they have an increasingly large proportion of the national wealth that they pay a large proportion of the taxes.

 

That aside, prices are set to what the market will bear, so how are people already just scratching out an existence supposed to cope with a further reduction in their post-tax disposable income as well as all purchases having 9% added? "It's not fair" is supposed to be a leftist liberal bleat, not a conservative one, so it's really amusing (or it would be if it wasn't so sad) to see conservatives pointing at the poor and calling them "lucky duckies" because they have insufficient income to be able to pay tax. Good grief.

 

I'm sorry I didn't realize we had a wealth tax, I thought it was an income tax. Silly me.

[TheGrunt]

As I have previously said I'm not all that up on Cain's plan, so I haven't determined whether I'd support it. The Fair Tax provides a rebate to everyone up to what ever the poverty line is, so basically if you are below the poverty line you are not paying any tax at all. You are only in effect paying tax when you purchase more goods than the poverty line. With regard to whether I would pay more, I don't know with Cain's plan, as I really haven't looked at it in detail. With the Fair Tax, some years I'd pay significantly more than I do now, and others I'd pay less. It would vary by year. With a flat tax it would really depend on which deductions were left in place, without knowing that there is really no way to answer your question.

 

 

 

 

It is about fairness. I think everyone should pay at least some taxes. I don't like the idea of someone that doesn't pay taxes voting for people who spend our money. The "wealthy already pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. I'm not for raising the rate on the wealth at all, until everyone at least pays something in taxes.

It's also about saving $430 Billion per year just to collect taxes under our current tax system.

 

Here's a great video of

at the pizza table.

[TheGrunt]

I'm sorry I didn't realize we had a wealth tax, I thought it was an income tax. Silly me.

We have to punish success, remember?

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm sorry I didn't realize we had a wealth tax, I thought it was an income tax. Silly me.

OK, pedant (been taking lessons off Az?). Substitute income for wealth.

[Ursa Majoris]

It's also about saving $430 Billion per year just to collect taxes under our current tax system.

 

Here's a great video of

at the pizza table.

Excellent. How will this benefit the people paying the considerably higher taxes?

[TheGrunt]

OK, pedant (been taking lessons off Az?). Substitute income for wealth.

Freudian slip?

[TheGrunt]

Excellent. How will this benefit the people paying the considerably higher taxes?

I don't understand the question. What people are you referring to?