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.
Regardless that I hope he won't get the nomination and/or wouldn't get elecetd if he does aqnd don't believe he could get this implimented if all of that comes to be, there is always a chance.
Many retired persons of moderate and lower incomes would end up getting hurt with this plan.
No income....so won't save on a lower tax rate.
Few capital gains to speak of, if any...so won't save there.
But will end up paying 9% more for everything we spend.
Ouch.
Does this apply to you/the retired people you know?
Many retired persons of moderate and lower incomes would end up getting hurt with this plan.
Don't kid yourself..
EVERYONE except the highest will get hurt under his plan.
Quote:
No income....so won't save on a lower tax rate.
Few capital gains to speak of, if any...so won't save there.
But will end up paying 9% more for everything we spend.
Don't forget the upfront hurt:
the 9% he wants assessed on assets/portfolios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
In other words, while on paper Cain is promising a tax cut, in reality tens of millions of lower-income Americans would face tax increases. People in high tax brackets — 28 percent and higher — would likely see big tax cuts. (As part of his plan, Cain would also eliminate estate taxes and capital gains taxes, which, again, mostly affect higher-income people with stock and real estate investments.)
Our tax system must be totally restructured as it has been rigged by politicians for many years and is now a huge mess of patches that does not service the population well.
What ever is implemented will not be the same as first proposed so I would not sweat the impact of the 9-9-9 plan but rather be thankful there is a conversation on the issue.
The real problem for many of us is that we have finances that are built around our crazy current system. I am all for doing something better and just hope that changes will not have a serious negative impact on any segment of us.
Regardless that I hope he won't get the nomination and/or wouldn't get elecetd if he does aqnd don't believe he could get this implimented if all of that comes to be, there is always a chance.
Many retired persons of moderate and lower incomes would end up getting hurt with this plan.
No income....so won't save on a lower tax rate.
Few capital gains to speak of, if any...so won't save there.
But will end up paying 9% more for everything we spend.
Ouch.
Does this apply to you/the retired people you know?
At least the 47% of citizens who pay ZERO income tax would pay something.
Isn't that a step in the right direction of defining "fair share"?
At least the 47% of citizens who pay ZERO income tax would pay something.
Isn't that a step in the right direction of defining "fair share"?
I agree with your sentiment in a general way, as I find it pretty scary that so many people pay no federal income tax at all. However, I continue to balk at the idea of a flat tax on income. Wouldn't nine percent be unfairly heavy on some couple with two children who live in a major metro area (where the jobs are) and who make a combined family income of, say, $45,000 a year, especially when the millionaires would be paying the same nine percent?
Another counter-argument (I believe already made in this thread) is that the working poor do pay sales taxes, Social Security payroll taxes, and property taxes (through their rent if not directly). The sales tax issue is a mixed bag, as a few states do not have sales tax at all and other states vary in what is exempt from it. For example, California is a high sales tax state, but all food items are exempt (in stores, not in restaurants). I find this counter-argument rather weak, because I agree with your general sentiment that it would be desirable for more people to have skin in the game. More people should be contributors to society rather than leeches off society.
And the rich should indeed pay more, percentage-wise. I think the current maximum federal income tax rate of 35% gives the rich a little too much of a free ride. The middle class is paying about 16%, give or take, and they make orders of magnitude less than the rich. Lord, let's not get started about what is "rich". There was a thread about that recently in the Business Forum and people argued that point for page after page after page. One person argued that a family income of $250,000 per year in a major city was "getting by", and I argued back that he was spoiled. There is no possible meeting of the minds about something like that.
I agree with your sentiment in a general way, as I find it pretty scary that so many people pay no federal income tax at all. However, I continue to balk at the idea of a flat tax on income. Wouldn't nine percent be unfairly heavy on some couple with two children who live in a major metro area (where the jobs are) and who make a combined family income of, say, $45,000 a year, especially when the millionaires would be paying the same nine percent?
Another counter-argument (I believe already made in this thread) is that the working poor do pay sales taxes, Social Security payroll taxes, and property taxes (through their rent if not directly). The sales tax issue is a mixed bag, as a few states do not have sales tax at all and other states vary in what is exempt from it. For example, California is a high sales tax state, but all food items are exempt (in stores, not in restaurants). I find this counter-argument rather weak, because I agree with your general sentiment that it would be desirable for more people to have skin in the game. More people should be contributors to society rather than leeches off society.
And the rich should indeed pay more, percentage-wise. I think the current maximum federal income tax rate of 35% gives the rich a little too much of a free ride. The middle class is paying about 16%, give or take, and they make orders of magnitude less than the rich. Lord, let's not get started about what is "rich". There was a thread about that recently in the Business Forum and people argued that point for page after page after page. One person argued that a family income of $250,000 per year in a major city was "getting by", and I argued back that he was spoiled. There is no possible meeting of the minds about something like that.
I appreciate your points about taxes other than income tax, and your examples of inequities between income brackets. However, I have little hope of us developing a "fair" income tax system when almost half of the people voting have a vested interest in continuing to pay nothing. Just so I don't come off as argumentative, I particularly agree with the last sentence in your post.
you must be shocked a lot. 'Me' seems to be the priority rather than 'us'.
I agree in that the system itself of taxation is all about the me rather than us. In fact other than this and similar proposals all I see is more shift to let the so called rich pay more and more.What is the let the rich pay other than let him pay my share;really.
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.
It's all relative!
