Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cletus,
Exempting investments is not unfair. If you know anything about marginal and effective rates, then you know I am not rich person. What you do not seem to get is that money from dividends and capital gains, comes from money that has already been taxed. Here's how it actually works now.
I earn a paycheck, with has taxes withheld (15% marginal, 13.5% effective) - first tax
Being a good capitalist, I direct a portion of my net (after it has been taxed once) income to retirement investments (tax free, tax deferred, and taxable) - the taxable portion of any dividends, interest or capital gains will be taxed again, for a second tax (10% -20%)
When I retire shortly, and begin to withdraw from my retirement accounts - some of that same money will get taxed again, on a cost basis.
When I die, assuming there is any money leftover, the estate tax will be levied. If I haven't loss count, that is tax opportunity no. 4.
Now tell me again what is unfair.
What if, rather than earning wages, you were a CEO who earned stock options? Under Cain's plan you wouldn't pay taxes on it when you received it, you wouldn't pay taxes on dividends you received from those stock options, and you wouldn't pay taxes on capital gains once you sold that stock.
Cain's plan also eliminates the inheritance tax -- so it would be possible to inherit billions, never pay a dime of taxes on the inheritance, never pay a dime of taxes on the dividends you live off, and then if you ever sell the stock, never pay a dime of capital gains taxes.
I don't want two taxes that might be raised with subsequent administrations and a national sales tax makes government bigger. The IRS would have to add thousands of employees in all of their operations (headquarters administrative, collections, examination/audit, forms, instructions and pubs, forms processing and data programming, criminal investigation) for a sales tax operation while still keeping their Individual Income Tax division.
It's either an income tax or a sales tax for me, not both and the burden for a national sales tax will fall on small businesses who will be getting no relief with the other taxes they will still have to report.
I too worry that even with this 999 tax structure, like Cain wants, may still allow politicians to raise taxes, but it all depends on how it is written. Maybe they can demand a super majority to raise taxes, and a simple majority to drop them back down.
One advantage is that if they do try to raise the VAT, we will all see it immediately, because all our purchases would cost more, the same goes for any increase to the personal income tax. People would vehemently oppose a tax increase, just so Washington DC could squander and waste more our money.
You have an incomplete understanding of the 999 plan as currently proposed.
First, it is designed to bring in the same amount of tax revenue as the current code. No programs are cut, and none are unfunded.
Fixed income = ss and or pension (the few left generally have inflation adjusters), annuities. The people who only have SS, and or maybe a small pension are screwed anyway. The country will have to do something to help those people, regardless of what the tax structure looks like.
so, you objection boils down to progressive, ideological talking (inaccurate at that) points
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
If you want to screw seniors this is the way to do it. First off it eliminates pay roll tax. No payroll tax = No Social Security and Medicare. You just cannot run those programs without it. Its too expensive if this gets passed when the trust fund money goes, and it will go quickly, the programs are done.
Secondly Seniors who are retirees tend to be on a fixed income and rely heavily on savings if they have it. If you add the 9% tax on sales, that just puts a 9% extra tax on retirees that they didn't have before.
Taxing wages but not taxing capital gains and dividends is not equitable.
So what is your solution?
The money I put into investments was already taxed at 9%. If my investment goes south, I could lose it all. There is no guarantee that my investment will pan out, so I diversify. Some investments fail, but if one of my investments is successful you want to come and take a chunk of it? Why? I risked my own money, not you, why do you think you deserve to take it from me?
no, it unfairly taxes the poor and lowers taxes on the rich.
What about the rich who don't work?
Example: Steve Jobs. he earned all of $1 per year as CEO of apple.
Yet he was worth BILLIONS.
Since the tax is only for wages, the rich wouldn't be paying anything at all, SINCE THEY can claim they don't earn a wage, but just earn money off of investments.
So, your argument is classist and fairness in nature. I can live with that. I just don't happen to share the envy, or desire to force others to be faaaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrr! The world is not fair, never has been.
Now, that last doesn't come from a cold heart. I do and will continue to do charitable work, and support organizations that help those in need. But, I do not countenance anyone forcing another to care for the unfortunates. That reeks of arbitrary power mongering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
What if, rather than earning wages, you were a CEO who earned stock options? Under Cain's plan you wouldn't pay taxes on it when you received it, you wouldn't pay taxes on dividends you received from those stock options, and you wouldn't pay taxes on capital gains once you sold that stock.
Cain's plan also eliminates the inheritance tax -- so it would be possible to inherit billions, never pay a dime of taxes on the inheritance, never pay a dime of taxes on the dividends you live off, and then if you ever sell the stock, never pay a dime of capital gains taxes.
Soft and unsubstantiated progressive classist and fairness talking points. You are aware that Alice Rivlin (Clinton's Budget Director) has teamed with Pete Domenici (a former Republican Senator) to propose something similar in nature? Or that Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles (Dem and Repub respectively) to propose yet another itheration of the 999 Cain plan?
Lot's of folks are working, and not always in agreement with each other, on very similar approaches to solving the punishing, ineffective tax code that we can thank both parties for. This is not about progressive, nor conservative.
Forget the inane talking points and join the discussion about true tax reform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annilyna
People can get "used to" anything really. I mean, if this 9-9-9 goes through, I guess the rest of us can eventually get used to living on a lot less, since purchasing products will have more of an impact on middle and poorer than the more wealthy. With consumers not being able to afford to purchase as much, consumption goes down, business have less demand, they are forced to cut back and cut jobs and hire less, which leads to more people out of work with NO income, purchasing less, and on and on. This, while the wealthy are sitting back, feeling they got a sweet deal. It's kinda like what we have now, really.
I'm afraid we'll have the IRS, or son of IRS around to use and abuse us fair citizens; even under this plan. But, I get the sentiment. And agree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Not true!!
A huge chunk of the IRS is cut out, gone, history, given the boot.
You can contest the math if you like. And that has occurred. But the plan is designed to bring in the same amount as the current tax structure. Thus funding all of the same programs and expenditures, including ss and medicare. The premise, is that the lower numbers work, becuase the economic growth it will bring, by unsaddling the economy of burdensome taxes.
Your understanding of the plan is either incomplete, or you are deliberately misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather
You have an incomplete understanding of the 999 plan as currently proposed.
First, it is designed to bring in the same amount of tax revenue as the current code. No programs are cut, and none are unfunded.
Fixed income = ss and or pension (the few left generally have inflation adjusters), annuities. The people who only have SS, and or maybe a small pension are screwed anyway. The country will have to do something to help those people, regardless of what the tax structure looks like.
so, you objection boils down to progressive, ideological talking (inaccurate at that) points
You seem to know a lot about this plan. Perhaps you could post some links to support what you are saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather
So, your argument is classist and fairness in nature. I can live with that. I just don't happen to share the envy, or desire to force others to be faaaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrr! The world is not fair, never has been.
Now, that last doesn't come from a cold heart. I do and will continue to do charitable work, and support organizations that help those in need. But, I do not countenance anyone forcing another to care for the unfortunates. That reeks of arbitrary power mongering.
You do know that Karl Marx is the one who came up with the term, class warfare? Are you a Marxist?
The people coming out ahead of course are not worried about fairness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
