Herman Cain

[Perchoutofwater]

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

 

I'd gladly trade my top 1% income for top 1% wealth. Do you know anyone that would be willing to trade me? You continuously complain about the concentration of wealth but the current tax system protects the ultra wealthy and yet punishes the very ambitious. If we didn't punish the ambitious, you would find a larger number of very wealthy. Instead we tax income rather than spending, thus penalizing those that are ambitious. The Fair Tax would take care of this. Of course it would also mean that some that currently have no tax burden might actually have to ante up some for voting for all that spending.

[wiegie]

I'd gladly trade my top 1% income for top 1% wealth. Do you know anyone that would be willing to trade me? You continuously complain about the concentration of wealth but the current tax system protects the ultra wealthy and yet punishes the very ambitious. If we didn't punish the ambitious, you would find a larger number of very wealthy. Instead we tax income rather than spending, thus penalizing those that are ambitious. The Fair Tax would take care of this. Of course it would also mean that some that currently have no tax burden might actually have to ante up some for voting for all that spending.

I agree quite about with your concerning wealth vs. income.

 

Rather than a "fair tax" wouldn't a progressive estate tax with a large starting exemption do about the same thing?

Edited September 28, 2011 by wiegie

[Ursa Majoris]

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

Under the Cain plan, there is a VERY large number of people that will pay more taxes than before. See my post where I provide an example of this.

[Perchoutofwater]

I agree quite about with your concerning wealth vs. income.

 

Rather than a "fair tax" wouldn't a progressive estate tax with a large starting exemption do about the same thing?

 

I wouldn't have a problem with an estate tax if and only if any assets held in a family business were exempt, and there was something like a homestead exemption as well.

[TheGrunt]

Under the Cain plan, there is a VERY large number of people that will pay more taxes than before. See my post where I provide an example of this.

So you're against the 999 plan because it puts all citizens accountable for paying an equal share of 9% sales tax, and would rather work with today's more redistributive style tax system where 50% of the U.S. population pays nothing? Interesting...

 

Is this what liberals mean when they rant about successful people, shouting at fat-cat CEOs to "pay their fair share!" but, you know, only if those tax increases don't affect themselves. Then it's OK.

[Ursa Majoris]

So you're against the 999 plan because it puts all citizens accountable for paying an equal share of 9% sales tax, and would rather work with today's more redistributive style tax system where 50% of the U.S. population pays nothing? Interesting...

 

Is this what liberals mean when they rant about successful people, shouting at fat-cat CEOs to "pay their fair share!" but, you know, only if those tax increases don't affect themselves. Then it's OK.

My supplementary question is in post #41

 

This was where I asked you about how it is you're OK with a pretty gigantic tax hike on poorer people but get all foaming at the mouth when anyone suggests tax raises elsewhere. So why is that? Likely voting preference?

[TheGrunt]

My supplementary question is in post #41

 

This was where I asked you about how it is you're OK with a pretty gigantic tax hike on poorer people but get all foaming at the mouth when anyone suggests tax raises elsewhere. So why is that? Likely voting preference?

I don't think voting preference has anything to do with the 999 plan. It's about saving $430B per year in cost to implement the current tax structure; it's about getting business formation, job creation and innovation moving again; it's about putting in place a fair tax system to replace individual and corporate income taxes; it's about pro-growth economic policies and creating a strong dollar policy.

 

It's really simple, 999.

 

1. Business Flat Tax – 9%

Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders.

Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for payroll employed in the zone.

 

2. Individual Flat Tax – 9%.

Gross income less charitable deductions.

Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.

 

3. National Sales Tax – 9%.

This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.

 

Even Obama talks about taxpayers successful businesses or people having to pay their "fair share." Although Obama completely butchers the definition of 'fair share' by playing class warfare; on the other hand, at least Herman Cain's 999 plan would end class warfare because everyone would be, by strict definition, paying their fair share of taxes.

Edited September 29, 2011 by TheGrunt

[Ursa Majoris]

But it's an item of faith in the Republican Party, especially the Tea Party, that taxes must NEVER go up, which they clearly will for darn near half the population with the 999 plan. It's such an article of faith that they have opposed closing even the most egregious loopholes so that revenue does not increase.

 

So I ask you again, "fair" tax or not, how do you square raising the taxes on millions of people with the current Republican mantra to never raise taxes on anyone?

[TheGrunt]

But it's an item of faith in the Republican Party, especially the Tea Party, that taxes must NEVER go up, which they clearly will for darn near half the population with the 999 plan. It's such an article of faith that they have opposed closing even the most egregious loopholes so that revenue does not increase.

 

So I ask you again, "fair" tax or not, how do you square raising the taxes on millions of people with the current Republican mantra to never raise taxes on anyone?

 

You can try somehow speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, suggesting the Tea Party Movement should be against the 999 plan, to fix the economy, but the fact is ....999 is a great plan.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Latest Fox Poll:

 

Romney 23%

Perry 19%

Cain 17%

 

 

Perry down, Cain up, and Bachmann (3%) nowhere to be found.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Latest Fox Poll:

 

Romney 23%

Perry 19%

Cain 17%

 

 

Perry down, Cain up, and Bachmann (3%) nowhere to be found.

 

 

She will need to amke some statement to energize her campaign. This could be entertaining.

[bpwallace49]

She will need to amke some statement to energize her campaign. This could be entertaining.

 

Or she needs another magazine to put a picture of her "crazy eyes" look on the cover . . . .either way, she needs some media love . .

 

[waiting on Palin}

[Boilerduff]

But it's an item of faith in the Republican Party, especially the Tea Party, that taxes must NEVER go up, which they clearly will for darn near half the population with the 999 plan. It's such an article of faith that they have opposed closing even the most egregious loopholes so that revenue does not increase.

 

So I ask you again, "fair" tax or not, how do you square raising the taxes on millions of people with the current Republican mantra to never raise taxes on anyone?

 

Due to the spending, I don't think that you can. Revenues will have to go up. But why should it only be on a select few? With reduced payroll taxes, everyone will have more money. Evil corporations will pay taxes. There will be no evil loopholes, like green tax credits. Everyone will be paying the same rate so Buffet can feel good about his tax rate, and it will spur business growth and create jobs, and make us more competitive globally. 999 Sounds like an all around winner, for EVERYONE. I need more details though. I prefer the fair tax, but anything is better than what we have now.

 

I'm not convinced that Cain's plan is right, but if the argument is that taxes need to be raised, how can you justify only raising taxes on a portion of the country. What exactly is a "Fair Share?"

 

Maybe if we start with defining that, we could get somewhere.

[Ursa Majoris]

Due to the spending, I don't think that you can. Revenues will have to go up. But why should it only be on a select few? With reduced payroll taxes, everyone will have more money. Evil corporations will pay taxes. There will be no evil loopholes, like green tax credits. Everyone will be paying the same rate so Buffet can feel good about his tax rate, and it will spur business growth and create jobs, and make us more competitive globally. 999 Sounds like an all around winner, for EVERYONE.

But that's my point - it isn't. I have previously posted an example of how it isn't, and won't be for anyone below some level and that may cover up to 50% of the population.

 

I should say that in general I think a flat tax rate has a lot to be said for it but unless it is cleverly phased in over a number of years, it would IMO be a disaster on many levels for far too many people.

[SEC=UGA]

But that's my point - it isn't. I have previously posted an example of how it isn't, and won't be for anyone below some level and that may cover up to 50% of the population.

 

I should say that in general I think a flat tax rate has a lot to be said for it but unless it is cleverly phased in over a number of years, it would IMO be a disaster on many levels for far too many people.

 

You looked into the Fair Tax?

[Boilerduff]

I think your point may be valid, but not to sound like Nancy Pelosi, we may need to pass it to know what is in it.

 

Concern for the effect on poverty is valid, but what does a lot more jobs, less unemployment, and better overall economy do to everyone, including those less fortunate? I think that you can never make a change like this without adversely affecting someone, but that may be pain that needs to be shared by everyone. I think this or somthing like this could do that. Fair tax.. etc.

 

It needs to be a shared sacrifice from everyone for it to work. I think that they would get more of their paycheck, and be able to use it in a way that would improve their lives. Revenue should go up, making more sustainable all of the government programs that help disadvantaged people. A good economy is good for everyone. A bad economy is bad. Somehting like this could go a long way to jumpstarting it.

 

All I know is what we got ain't workin for anyone. At some point we need to rip off the bandaid.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Boilerduff

[bpwallace49]

I think your point may be valid, but not to sound like Nancy Pelosi, we may need to pass it to know what is in it.

 

Concern for the effect on poverty is valid, but what does a lot more jobs, less unemployment, and better overall economy do to everyone, including those less fortunate? I think that you can never make a change like this without adversely affecting someone, but that may be pain that needs to be shared by everyone. I think this or somthing like this could do that. Fair tax.. etc.

 

It needs to be a shared sacrifice from everyone for it to work. I think that they would get more of their paycheck, and be able to use it in a way that would improve their lives. Revenue should go up, making more sustainable all of the government programs that help disadvantaged people. A good economy is good for everyone. A bad economy is bad. Somehting like this could go a long way to jumpstarting it.

 

All I know is what we got ain't workin for anyone. At some point we need to rip off the bandaid.

 

Soo . . . . just another cleverly worded example of "trickle down" economics?

 

Cause that sure worked well over the last few years . . .

[Big John]

 

Cain suspends campaigning today

[bushwacked]

Cain suspends campaigning today

 

Perch and LadeyHawke will be crushed.

 

9-9-9! Ubeka becka becka stan stan!

[Pope Flick]

Pawlenty HAS to feel like an idiot quitter at the moment, with Newt Gingrich stepping up to the top.

 

And Cain's flat tax is worth looking at, but the numbers needed to be closer to 17-19%. He was halfway there with a decent idea.

[WaterMan]

Herman Cain't

Edited December 3, 2011 by WaterMan

[SheikYerbuti]

It was the media's fault.

[CowboyGal2011]

Mr. Cain, congrats on a successful book tour!

[bpwallace49]

Mr. Cain, congrats on a successful book tour!

 

Sarah Palin has taught him well.

[The Holy Roller]

...and that's what happens with too much pollin'...