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.
That was your first mistake - listening to what any politician has to say.
The last time I checked Herman Cain was running for the Office of the President, not Congress. In case you were not aware, the Executive Branch is a completely separate and equal branch of government from the Legislative Branch.
Presidents cannot dictate to Congress any more than Congress can dictate to Presidents. What a President wants in regard to Congress is completely immaterial. At the very best Cain can ASK Congress, and they will promptly tell him "not a chance in Hell!"
WOW, such a lack or respect for fellow posters.
Your first mistake was making comments on an issue you obviously don't know much about.
I don't share your hatred for all politicians.
NOWHERE has Cain suggested dictating to Congress as you allege.
Your lack of knowledge is probably why you don't trust any politician.
I hope you have written Obama and told him not to submit any more health care care bills and so-called job stimulus bills and budget proposals.
You have an incomplete understanding of how medicare and social security are funded.
Medicare and Social Security are funded via their own pay roll taxes. These are generally kept apart from the general fund. As a result there are three steams of income taxes, one individual income tax which goes to the general fund and two payroll tax streams one that goes directly to pay Social Security and another that goes directly to Medicare. Herman Cain's 999 plan is for the general fund, but he also eliminates payroll taxes, so you no longer have SS and Medicare funding stream and while 999 replaces the general fund income by adding a sales tax to deal with the reduction/elimination of stuff like the capital gains tax, estate tax, and a reduction in corporate and high end Individual income. It doesn't do anything to replace payroll and the independent revenue streams to SS and Medicare. (which by itself is, excluding this holiday, an 8% flat tax on income below 106,000 plus an extra employer contribution which puts it way above what Cain says the entire person income tax should be). So while I see how 999 could replace the general fund, it cannot replace the SS and Medicare funding and with nothing to replace those streams SS and Medicare, if they are to survive will have to draw on the general fund and they would sink it like a stone.
What makes this especially hilarious is if you actually know how the Chilean Social Security system works. Essentially it allows Chileans to either either take their SS contribution and put it into an individual account, or keep it in the government plan. Under the 999 tax code this would be impossible since there would be no payroll taxes and thus it would be impossible to know what an individual's contribution actually is (if any) and so there is no way you could have the 999 plan and use the Chilean model at the same time.
Finally, if your only response to my points are Oh those seniors are screwed anyway so it doesn't matter if we raise taxes on them by 9%, I don't think you have a good argument
A bit of a correction of the actual facts is needed here .... Social Security taxes go directly into the general fund .... there is no SS trust fund account. There are only entries into an accounting system that keeps track of SS revenue, but every penny goes straight into the general fund like all other revenue collections. What that really means is that SS payments are in fact paid for with borrowed funds, since we are operating on a 1+ Trillion deficit, while collecting these funds under false pretense. It's just another tax, like all of the rest, and is handled no differently.
As for the 999 plan ... you don't need a degree in economics or mathematics to understand that a federal consumption or sales tax will punish the lowest incomes far more since they spend the majority of their incomes on consumption, as compared to the very wealthy who spend only a small fraction of their total income on consumption.
Further, anything that discourages "buying", like high sales taxes will result in further declines in consumer spending, worsening the economy.
This clown Cain ought to be booed right out into the streets. But, his purpose may simply be another "dive" by the republicrats for a second Obama term, since he's such compliant war monger .... just like that walking zombie John McCain was a total non-challenge no-contest plea in the first go round.
And the left are drooling at the prospects of a Black on Black presidential election.
Your first mistake was making comments on an issue you obviously don't know much about.
I don't share your hatred for all politicians.
NOWHERE has Cain suggested dictating to Congress as you allege.
Your lack of knowledge is probably why you don't trust any politician.
I hope you have written Obama and told him not to submit any more health care care bills and so-called job stimulus bills and budget proposals.
Speaking of lack of knowledge, it was Pelosi's Health Care Reform Act that passed in December 2009, which Reid replaced with his own Health Care Reform Act, and that was the bill that was enacted into law in March 2010. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with either piece of legislation. As we have seen from the current jobs bill Obama is proposing, he cannot even get his own party to support the bill.
All any President can do is propose legislation. They cannot enact anything into law. Of course you would know this already if you were not civically illiterate. Naturally I fully expect you to buy into the empty rhetoric and deliberate lies being promised by candidates, the truly ignorant always do.
As for the 999 plan ... you don't need a degree in economics or mathematics to understand that a federal consumption or sales tax will punish the lowest incomes far more since they spend the majority of their incomes on consumption, as compared to the very wealthy who spend only a small fraction of their total income on consumption.
Further, anything that discourages "buying", like high sales taxes will result in further declines in consumer spending, worsening the economy.
This clown Cain ought to be booed right out into the streets. But, his purpose may simply be another "dive" by the republicrats for a second Obama term, since he's such compliant war monger .... just like that walking zombie John McCain was a total non-challenge no-contest plea in the first go round.
And the left are drooling at the prospects of a Black on Black presidential election.
Agree with much of your post.
Regarding the lowest incomes - the issue is not $ amount, but buying power. By some scenarios, the price of goods and services will drop following the lesser amount of $ which lower income segments will have. So by the end, the system will balance itself...
But from what I read, the total revenues projected from the 9-9-9 system, will be around 60% of today's amount, which will require the federal government to drastically cut expenses.
Anyways, I guess Herman Cain is a passing episode, which will totally be forgotten by next year.
(In NYC we have an African American mayoral candidate whose slogan and only policy is "Rent is too Damn High" He reminds me of Cain...)
The only tax plan I would ever put my stamp of moral approval on is a user-fee based system, whereas each fee (or most of them - except those that operate on a point-of-sale payment method) has to be meticulously itemized, and each fee can be disputed, if in error. You get charged exactly (or damn near so) for what you use. All fees must also be directly related to the current or past years line item budget so that there is no "padding" of the fees to generate an enormous surplus so that people are not charged above and beyond the amount they are really using in services.
Debt repayment could simply be another line-item charge on ones user-fee statement. The only difference is it should be statutorily encoded that that money cannot be used for any other purpose than repaying the debt. No sleazy emergency exceptions either, which would let them dip into that fund to siphon off money from it (e.g. for war, or to to bail out various programs that may be in financial straits). As if they wouldn't find an accounting end-run around that, anyway... Cooking the books is what they do best.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 10-12-2011 at 01:36 PM..
Why is it wrong to expect all working citizens regardless of income to pay taxes? Do low income people not benefit from this nations social services? In fact it can be argued that they benefit the most. Giving people back more than they paid is insane.
Punishing success is equally insane.
I like the 9-9-9 idea but I would compromise. For incomes lower than say 24g 5% Thats 100 dollars a month....
9% on corporate profits . How much did GE pay last year?
A bit of a correction of the actual facts is needed here .... Social Security taxes go directly into the general fund .... there is no SS trust fund account. There are only entries into an accounting system that keeps track of SS revenue, but every penny goes straight into the general fund like all other revenue collections. What that really means is that SS payments are in fact paid for with borrowed funds, since we are operating on a 1+ Trillion deficit, while collecting these funds under false pretense. It's just another tax, like all of the rest, and is handled no differently.
You are exactly right. The Democrat controlled Congress abolished the Social Security Trust Fund in 1968 in order to pay for LBJ's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty." Ever since then all Social Security revenues have gone directly into the General Fund.
Currently, approximately two-thirds of the Intragovernmental Holdings portion of the National Debt ($4.6 trillion) is the result of borrowing against Social Security, or about $3.1 trillion of the total $14.8 trillion National Debt (21%).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
As for the 999 plan ... you don't need a degree in economics or mathematics to understand that a federal consumption or sales tax will punish the lowest incomes far more since they spend the majority of their incomes on consumption, as compared to the very wealthy who spend only a small fraction of their total income on consumption.
Further, anything that discourages "buying", like high sales taxes will result in further declines in consumer spending, worsening the economy.
This clown Cain ought to be booed right out into the streets. But, his purpose may simply be another "dive" by the republicrats for a second Obama term, since he's such compliant war monger .... just like that walking zombie John McCain was a total non-challenge no-contest plea in the first go round.
And the left are drooling at the prospects of a Black on Black presidential election.
A consumption tax is also a hidden tax. Nobody keeps track of every purchase they made in a given year, therefore, nobody will have any idea how much of their income was spent on federal taxes.
We already have a perfect example that demonstrates how consumption taxes are hidden - the federal gasoline consumption tax. Everyone knows, or should know, that the federal government collects $0.186 for every gallon of gasoline purchased, but no one knows how many gallons of gasoline they purchased in any given year. Therefore, no one can determine the amount in federal consumption tax they paid for gasoline.
Additionally, should Congress decide to increase that consumption tax, how would the consumer know? They would go to fill up their vehicle and see that the price has increased by maybe $0.05. It could be the local gas station, distributor, refinery, or the price of oil going up in price. Or it could be an increase in the State/federal consumption tax, or a combination of different factors. There is no way of knowing.
I would much rather pay income taxes than consumption taxes. At least that way I know precisely how much of my income the government is taking.
Agree with much of your post.
Regarding the lowest incomes - the issue is not $ amount, but buying power. By some scenarios, the price of goods and services may decrease following the lesser amount of $ which the lower income segments will have. So by the end, it will balance itself.
Only in fantasy scenarios, friend. Since when have corporations passed along savings to the consumer? NEVER. Did the consumer get a break on the price of Levis when production was shifted off shore, and netting a 15-20% reduction in labor (which traditionally accounts for about 25% of costs of production). Last time I checked, Nike still charges astronomical amounts for their "Swoosh" label, even though it's made with the same slave labor the bargain brands are made by. And the majority of these large corporations pay little if any tax now .... so there is no gain for them under such a proposal ... it will be a small increase, and it will be passed along in higher prices.
The very idea that the poor may pay more in taxes but will get a break in lower costs for goods is really, really .... well, I'm at a loss for a kind adjective. Why not just tax the freaking corporations instead of the poor folks, and guarantee they won't be paying more? Cuz that's not what the plan is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
But from what I read, the total revenues collected with the 9-9-9 system, will be around 60% of today's amount, which will require the federal government to drastically cut expenses.
And you can bet they won't be cutting the war budget ... or the homeland security budget ... or their own pay checks ... and their sweetheart deals with the Internationals and Bankers and insider trading criminal conspirators. No, grandma's SS check and medicare will take a hit .... the services government is supposed to be doing will all get cut ....austerity baby .... the Bankers will still get their bailouts, and we'll get the cuts. That's the problem .... too much spending on things that don't serve the people who are expected to pay the bill! But they won't cut the spending that they should be cutting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
Anyways, I guess that Herman Cain is a passing episode, totally forgotten by next year.
(In NYC we have an African American mayoral candidate whose slogan and only policy is "Rent is too Damn High He reminds me of Cain...)
He's a dangerous shill, and his leap to the front runner position virtually overnight is total theater and a complete fraud.
Only in fantasy scenarios, friend. Since when have corporations passed along savings to the consumer? NEVER. Did the consumer get a break on the price of Levis when production was shifted off shore, and netting a 15-20% reduction in labor (which traditionally accounts for about 25% of costs of production). Last time I checked, Nike still charges astronomical amounts for their "Swoosh" label, even though it's made with the same slave labor the bargain brands are made by. And the majority of these large corporations pay little if any tax now .... so there is no gain for them under such a proposal ... it will be a small increase, and it will be passed along in higher prices.
The very idea that the poor may pay more in taxes but will get a break in lower costs for goods is really, really .... well, I'm at a loss for a kind adjective. Why not just tax the freaking corporations instead of the poor folks, and guarantee they won't be paying more? Cuz that's not what the plan is.
"Since when have corporations passed along savings to the consumer?"
Only if they have no choice, and I refer to this scenario.
"Why not just tax the freaking corporations instead of the poor folks, and guarantee they won't be paying more?"
Because in reality corporations do not pay the amount they should, anyway. It is always possible to deduct expenses to lower profits on paper. But as you say, that's not the scope of this post.
However, I agree with you, that is simply election talk. In reality, it will be impossible to pass any fundamental change in the tax code.
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.
