We seem to have a lot of anti Cain sentiment on the board so lets put it to the test

[GHook93]

Simple, If Cain wins the nomination will you vote for him or Obama?

The leftist fear this man! When he becomes President he will turn the country around and we will see a recovery like the world has never seen before! They know he can turn a new generations of African Americans onto Cain and the Republican party. Their gravy train will be over!

They should be happy an economic genius is about to take off the white house from a failed community organizer!

 

[Liability]

And again you completely missed the point or demonstrated a reading deficiency problem. But stupid is as stupid does so carry on.

Then explain it to me. Explain it to all of us.

How is Cain's 9-9-9 plan better for the economy than the current system we have?

It might be a mixed blessing, but it does come with SOME attributes which even YOU would be compelled to acknowledge if you were inclined to be honest.

With a FLAT tax for corporations of 9%, companies could make rational business decisions based on fixed and known quantifiable costs. Tax is a cost when it has to get paid.

For all the ninnies out there whining that "greedy corporations" don't pay taxes, that bullshit would fly out the window. The companies WOULD pay taxes -- although ultimately since they would simply pass the cost of paying that tax bill along to the consumers, it is really all of us who would be paying. And that payment would NOT be terribly "progressive," either. But you dolts ASK for it, so you dolts can HAVE it. No whining allowed once you GET it, either. ANOTHER benefit!

With a FLAT Tax for individuals, the very wealthy (i.e. the cartoonish caricatures you goobers paint of Rich [and greedy] Uncle Pennybags) would sure as shit be paying money on yearly income. And since the rich tend to earn more, they would be PAYING more than less affluent folks. Ah. Fairness.

A very predictable income stream.

Massively reduced paperwork for taxation.

Freed-up man-hours of time from that alone COULD be donated to the business of business to manufacture its product or perform its service.

Decent prospect of increased employment as a direct outcome of the foregoing benefits. Thus MORE taxpayers and yet more income for the government to spend prudently and wisely ...

Oops. No plan is perfect.

 

[Foxfyre]

9-9-9 is not a perfect plan and I have my own concerns with it, but it is a far better solution than our current mess of a tax system which not even the IRS understands. It will most definitely get the economy moving again, that's for sure.

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

I also have had the same concerns as California Girl though. Most of us can remember when that first 1% sales tax went into effect in our state or our town. No big deal. We could live with that. Then it went to 2%. We all didn't like it but sucked it up and figured we could manage with it. And so on.

Now it is soooooo easy for the city or state to tack on an extra quarter cent here, a quarter cent there so that over time the percentage keeps getting larger. It so very rarely ever goes backwards but the increments are so small we don't feel them much at the time.

Soooooooo, if we ARE going to have a national sales tax, I want it iron clad that Congress cannot raise it without consent of a national referendum or something like that. Otherwise, I think the temptation to just keep inching it up will be too great.

 

[GHook93]

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

And Cain's plan won't tax capital gains. Which means a wealthy person who earns his income from capital gains will pay exactly $0 in income taxes.

How is that fair?

God you're fucking dense. Anyone who has a 401(k), pension plan, education IRA, Roth IRA, money market, mutual funds, stocks or really any retirement or investment account then your negatively effected by capital gains! Pretty much anyone who works is negatively effected by capital gains.

To the investment side. Do you realize when companies issue stock its for growth. When they grow that usually equates to hiring WORKERS! Why can't leftist understand that large corporation hire many workers to high paying jobs and offer great benefits!

 

[DontBeStupid]

And again you completely missed the point or demonstrated a reading deficiency problem. But stupid is as stupid does so carry on.

Then explain it to me. Explain it to all of us.

How is Cain's 9-9-9 plan better for the economy than the current system we have?

It might be a mixed blessing, but it does come with SOME attributes which even YOU would be compelled to acknowledge if you were inclined to be honest.

With a FLAT tax for corporations of 9%, companies could make rational business decisions based on fixed and known quantifiable costs. Tax is a cost when it has to get paid.

For all the ninnies out there whining that "greedy corporations" don't pay taxes, that bullshit would fly out the window. The companies WOULD pay taxes -- although ultimately since they would simply pass the cost of paying that tax bill along to the consumers, it is really all of us who would be paying. And that payment would NOT be terribly "progressive," either. But you dolts ASK for it, so you dolts can HAVE it. No whining allowed once you GET it, either. ANOTHER benefit!

With a FLAT Tax for individuals, the very wealthy (i.e. the cartoonish caricatures you goobers paint of Rich [and greedy] Uncle Pennybags) would sure as shit be paying money on yearly income. And since the rich tend to earn more, they would be PAYING more than less affluent folks. Ah. Fairness.

A very predictable income stream.

Massively reduced paperwork for taxation.

Freed-up man-hours of time from that alone COULD be donated to the business of business to manufacture its product or perform its service.

Decent prospect of increased employment as a direct outcome of the foregoing benefits. Thus MORE taxpayers and yet more income for the government to spend prudently and wisely ...

Oops. No plan is perfect.

You are completely talking out of your ass.

1) Corporate taxes are paid on profits, which is AFTER costs of business have been taken out. Those taxes are NOT a cost of doing business. A company that is breaking even and paying 35% in corporate taxes will pay the same in taxes when the rate is reduced to 9%.

2) The very wealthy "earn" their income via capital gains and dividends. Both would not be taxed under Cain's plan, meaning the very wealthy would pay $0 in taxes.

3) A national sales tax means there is incentive to NOT buy new products. This will mean less revenue to companies that make products. How does less revenue help a company expand and hire new workers?

Seriously dude. Don't be stupid.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

And Cain's plan won't tax capital gains. Which means a wealthy person who earns his income from capital gains will pay exactly $0 in income taxes.

How is that fair?

God you're fucking dense. Anyone who has a 401(k), pension plan, education IRA, Roth IRA, money market, mutual funds, stocks or really any retirement or investment account then your negatively effected by capital gains! Pretty much anyone who works is negatively effected by capital gains.

To the investment side. Do you realize when companies issue stock its for growth. When they grow that usually equates to hiring WORKERS! Why can't leftist understand that large corporation hire many workers to high paying jobs and offer great benefits!

You do realize most of what you listed grows tax-free, right? You know that, right? Also, you know that companies are sitting on almost $2T in cash and are still not hiring, right? You know that, right?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Simple, If Cain wins the nomination will you vote for him or Obama?

I could vote for Cain, but I think some of his ideas are unrealistic. 9-9-9 being one of them.

But why? WHY is it unrealistic? Because some say it can't be done? People once said it was impossible to sail around the world, to fly, to receive voices or pictures through a wire, to fit a computer into single room, let alone into the palm of your hand. It was once believed that people are incapable of governing themselves or a Constitution such as is enjoyed in America was not possible.

I don't accept that we can't stop the runaway trainwreck that our federal government has become, that there is no better way to do tax policy, I don't accept that the federal government can't be reformed, that we are incapable of doing things differently and better.

I don't know whether 9-9-9 will work, but I do know that Herman Cain is a master mathematician and probably has a good grasp on the numbers. That alone means we should give it an honest hearing before we reject it as 'impractical'.

The only reason 9-9-9 wouldn't work is if it didn't bring in enough cash to cover the bills.

I'll bet $1 that if we try it, and we keep out the favoritism, we'll be able to roll back the rate to 7-7-7 by 2025 after making serious headway on the debt.

 

[bripat9643]

I have nothing against Cain as a person. I'm sure he's very nice and would be fun to sit down with and have a pizza.

But his policies are terrible. I mean, REALLY, terrible. There are areas that Obama needs to improve, but Cain is just ... terrible.

Which policies of his are "terrible?"

 

[DontBeStupid]

I have nothing against Cain as a person. I'm sure he's very nice and would be fun to sit down with and have a pizza.

But his policies are terrible. I mean, REALLY, terrible. There are areas that Obama needs to improve, but Cain is just ... terrible.

Which policies of his are "terrible?"

You obviously have not even attempted to read this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

God you're fucking dense. Anyone who has a 401(k), pension plan, education IRA, Roth IRA, money market, mutual funds, stocks or really any retirement or investment account then your negatively effected by capital gains! Pretty much anyone who works is negatively effected by capital gains.

That's true enough. The downside is that profits are the means companies use to grow, that is, to create new jobs and new products. When you tax profits, you are doing the equivalent of eating the seed corn. Less money leftover after taxes means less investment and less expansion.

 

[Liability]

Then explain it to me. Explain it to all of us.

How is Cain's 9-9-9 plan better for the economy than the current system we have?

It might be a mixed blessing, but it does come with SOME attributes which even YOU would be compelled to acknowledge if you were inclined to be honest.

With a FLAT tax for corporations of 9%, companies could make rational business decisions based on fixed and known quantifiable costs. Tax is a cost when it has to get paid.

For all the ninnies out there whining that "greedy corporations" don't pay taxes, that bullshit would fly out the window. The companies WOULD pay taxes -- although ultimately since they would simply pass the cost of paying that tax bill along to the consumers, it is really all of us who would be paying. And that payment would NOT be terribly "progressive," either. But you dolts ASK for it, so you dolts can HAVE it. No whining allowed once you GET it, either. ANOTHER benefit!

With a FLAT Tax for individuals, the very wealthy (i.e. the cartoonish caricatures you goobers paint of Rich [and greedy] Uncle Pennybags) would sure as shit be paying money on yearly income. And since the rich tend to earn more, they would be PAYING more than less affluent folks. Ah. Fairness.

A very predictable income stream.

Massively reduced paperwork for taxation.

Freed-up man-hours of time from that alone COULD be donated to the business of business to manufacture its product or perform its service.

Decent prospect of increased employment as a direct outcome of the foregoing benefits. Thus MORE taxpayers and yet more income for the government to spend prudently and wisely ...

Oops. No plan is perfect.

You are completely talking out of your ass.

1) Corporate taxes are paid on profits, which is AFTER costs of business have been taken out. Those taxes are NOT a cost of doing business. A company that is breaking even and paying 35% in corporate taxes will pay the same in taxes when the rate is reduced to 9%.

2) The very wealthy "earn" their income via capital gains and dividends. Both would not be taxed under Cain's plan, meaning the very wealthy would pay $0 in taxes.

3) A national sales tax means there is incentive to NOT buy new products. This will mean less revenue to companies that make products. How does less revenue help a company expand and hire new workers?

Seriously dude. Don't be stupid.

You need to stop being so stupid.

Corporations don't PAY taxes, stupid. They pass the cost along to consumers, you dishonest idiot. OF COURSE it is a cost of doing business. For if it weren't, you mental midget, they could SELL THEIR PRODUCT for less money, schmuck. The increased cost is passed along to the buyers, you imbecile.

As for capital gains and dividends, that money comes in year by year. Did you EVER buy a stock that made a profit? How difficult is it (even for one as clearly dimwitted as you are) to figure out that WE collectively get to DEFINE what "income" is. And to the extent it's a "problem," we can define the collection of dividends as INCOME. Capital gains are ALSO profit, moron, once the stock is SOLD. If it isn't paid EVERY year, it does get paid when the gain is realized. Get a fucking handle on the basics before you spout off your dopey ignorance, someday.

A national sales tax comes with problems. But people still need some products and services, stupid. And they will still desire others. The filthy evil greedy rich folks who do a lot of that "consuming" thing, you moron, will therefore be paying a higher percentage of that particular variety of taxation. Even one as pathetically stupid as you are OUGHT to be able to figure THAT much out, you tragic imbecile.

Seriously, dud, I recognize that you can't help BEING a fucking stupid moron, but you should at least try to smarten up a little. Honesty would help too. Give that some effort -- someday.

 

[rightwinger]

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

I also have had the same concerns as California Girl though. Most of us can remember when that first 1% sales tax went into effect in our state or our town. No big deal. We could live with that. Then it went to 2%. We all didn't like it but sucked it up and figured we could manage with it. And so on.

Now it is soooooo easy for the city or state to tack on an extra quarter cent here, a quarter cent there so that over time the percentage keeps getting larger. It so very rarely ever goes backwards but the increments are so small we don't feel them much at the time.

Soooooooo, if we ARE going to have a national sales tax, I want it iron clad that Congress cannot raise it without consent of a national referendum or something like that. Otherwise, I think the temptation to just keep inching it up will be too great.

In addition, nobody is addressing the loss of states revenue. When the federal government tacks on a 9% sales tax, will the states drop their 7% sales tax or just add it onto the federal tax meaning you pay 16% sales tax?

 

[bripat9643]

I have nothing against Cain as a person. I'm sure he's very nice and would be fun to sit down with and have a pizza.

But his policies are terrible. I mean, REALLY, terrible. There are areas that Obama needs to improve, but Cain is just ... terrible.

Which policies of his are "terrible?"

You obviously have not even attempted to read this thread.

In other words, you can't name any.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Thanks for playing!

 

[Liability]

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

I also have had the same concerns as California Girl though. Most of us can remember when that first 1% sales tax went into effect in our state or our town. No big deal. We could live with that. Then it went to 2%. We all didn't like it but sucked it up and figured we could manage with it. And so on.

Now it is soooooo easy for the city or state to tack on an extra quarter cent here, a quarter cent there so that over time the percentage keeps getting larger. It so very rarely ever goes backwards but the increments are so small we don't feel them much at the time.

Soooooooo, if we ARE going to have a national sales tax, I want it iron clad that Congress cannot raise it without consent of a national referendum or something like that. Otherwise, I think the temptation to just keep inching it up will be too great.

In addition, nobody is addressing the loss of states revenue. When the federal government tacks on a 9% sales tax, will the states drop their 7% sales tax or just add it onto the federal tax meaning you pay 16% sales tax?

Oh nosies! You mean in addition to paying taxes to the Fed (as we already are) we will have to continue paying taxes to the states and localities (as we already are)?

The horror!

That's not a rational objection. It's a very petty and disingenuous quibble.

 

[bripat9643]

I also have had the same concerns as California Girl though. Most of us can remember when that first 1% sales tax went into effect in our state or our town. No big deal. We could live with that. Then it went to 2%. We all didn't like it but sucked it up and figured we could manage with it. And so on.

Now it is soooooo easy for the city or state to tack on an extra quarter cent here, a quarter cent there so that over time the percentage keeps getting larger. It so very rarely ever goes backwards but the increments are so small we don't feel them much at the time.

Soooooooo, if we ARE going to have a national sales tax, I want it iron clad that Congress cannot raise it without consent of a national referendum or something like that. Otherwise, I think the temptation to just keep inching it up will be too great.

The problem is even worse with a value added tax. It doesn't show up on your receipt so you don't even know how much you are paying. All the European countries and Canada are paying in the neighborhood of 15% VAT on top of a killer income tax.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You are completely talking out of your ass.

1) Corporate taxes are paid on profits, which is AFTER costs of business have been taken out. Those taxes are NOT a cost of doing business. A company that is breaking even and paying 35% in corporate taxes will pay the same in taxes when the rate is reduced to 9%.

2) The very wealthy "earn" their income via capital gains and dividends. Both would not be taxed under Cain's plan, meaning the very wealthy would pay $0 in taxes.

3) A national sales tax means there is incentive to NOT buy new products. This will mean less revenue to companies that make products. How does less revenue help a company expand and hire new workers?

Seriously dude. Don't be stupid.

You need to stop being so stupid.

Corporations don't PAY taxes, stupid. They pass the cost along to consumers, you dishonest idiot. OF COURSE it is a cost of doing business. For if it weren't, you mental midget, they could SELL THEIR PRODUCT for less money, schmuck. The increased cost is passed along to the buyers, you imbecile.

As for capital gains and dividends, that money comes in year by year. Did you EVER buy a stock that made a profit? How difficult is it (even for one as clearly dimwitted as you are) to figure out that WE collectively get to DEFINE what "income" is. And to the extent it's a "problem," we can define the collection of dividends as INCOME. Capital gains are ALSO profit, moron, once the stock is SOLD. If it isn't paid EVERY year, it does get paid when the gain is realized. Get a fucking handle on the basics before you spout off your dopey ignorance, someday.

A national sales tax comes with problems. But people still need some products and services, stupid. And they will still desire others. The filthy evil greedy rich folks who do a lot of that "consuming" thing, you moron, will therefore be paying a higher percentage of that particular variety of taxation. Even one as pathetically stupid as you are OUGHT to be able to figure THAT much out, you tragic imbecile.

Seriously, dud, I recognize that you can't help BEING a fucking stupid moron, but you should at least try to smarten up a little. Honesty would help too. Give that some effort -- someday.

Well done! I think you fit an insult to me in every single sentence. You win the interwebs!

Of course, you demonstrated that you have a very weak grasp of the issues. Almost as weak a grasp as you have on your temper. But lets stick to the issues for now:

1) A company has $1M in costs of doing business and brings in $1.5M in revenue. Their corporate tax rate is 25%. Cain wants to reduce this to 9%. How much will that company's costs of doing business change based on this new corporate tax rate?

2) Ok. I honestly have no clue what you were trying to say in your post here. It seemed a bit of a rambling, drunken tirade. I did get this part though "we can define the collection of dividends as INCOME". And I agree, WE can. But Cain doesn't. And since it's Cain's plan we're discussing here, you might want to stick with what Cain defines or doesn't define.

3) "The filthy evil greedy rich folks who do a lot of that "consuming" thing, you moron, will therefore be paying a higher percentage of that particular variety of taxation". Why? How? It's a fact that those at the higher incomes spend less of their income than those who are poorer. If the sales tax is based on what you spend, and the wealthy spend a lower percentage, how then can they end up magically paying a higher percentage?

 

[rightwinger]

I also have had the same concerns as California Girl though. Most of us can remember when that first 1% sales tax went into effect in our state or our town. No big deal. We could live with that. Then it went to 2%. We all didn't like it but sucked it up and figured we could manage with it. And so on.

Now it is soooooo easy for the city or state to tack on an extra quarter cent here, a quarter cent there so that over time the percentage keeps getting larger. It so very rarely ever goes backwards but the increments are so small we don't feel them much at the time.

Soooooooo, if we ARE going to have a national sales tax, I want it iron clad that Congress cannot raise it without consent of a national referendum or something like that. Otherwise, I think the temptation to just keep inching it up will be too great.

In addition, nobody is addressing the loss of states revenue. When the federal government tacks on a 9% sales tax, will the states drop their 7% sales tax or just add it onto the federal tax meaning you pay 16% sales tax?

Oh nosies! You mean in addition to paying taxes to the Fed (as we already are) we will have to continue paying taxes to the states and localities (as we already are)?

The horror!

That's not a rational objection. It's a very petty and disingenuous quibble.

I don't think a 16% sales tax is a quibble

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

I also have had the same concerns as California Girl though. Most of us can remember when that first 1% sales tax went into effect in our state or our town. No big deal. We could live with that. Then it went to 2%. We all didn't like it but sucked it up and figured we could manage with it. And so on.

Now it is soooooo easy for the city or state to tack on an extra quarter cent here, a quarter cent there so that over time the percentage keeps getting larger. It so very rarely ever goes backwards but the increments are so small we don't feel them much at the time.

Soooooooo, if we ARE going to have a national sales tax, I want it iron clad that Congress cannot raise it without consent of a national referendum or something like that. Otherwise, I think the temptation to just keep inching it up will be too great.

The adversity congress now has for tax increases is a sensitivity I believe is not going any where soon. Keep the numbers tied to each other and neither class will wield political power over the other and raise taxes without raising their own taxes in the process.

It's no wonder the wealthy struck back with paid-for politics designed to weaken the income tax codes. The Social Democrats of the mid to late 20th Century used the income tax as a mis-guided punitive measure when regulation promoting personal responsibility in a world of corporate paper to hide behind was called for.

Taxing ourselves using a blend of income and consumption taxes where one cannot be raised or lowered without affecting the other make sense to me.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Which policies of his are "terrible?"

You obviously have not even attempted to read this thread.

In other words, you can't name any.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Thanks for playing!

Don't be a coward.

1) It is in our national security to stop depending on other countries for our energy needs. National security means it is a Federal issue and will not be resolved without Federal action. Cain is against this. I am not.
2) Pulling students and "their money" out of public schools who are already underfunded will not fix those schools. Cain is for this. I am not.
3) Allowing states and counties to decide what to teach children is a terrible idea. Just look at what Kansas has tried. Cain is for this. I am not.
4) No President should favour an ethnic group over another, or mistreat one group over another. As you just said, we don't know where Cain stands on this.
5) Cain supports ending Medicare. I do not.
6) Cain has no plan to slow the rise in health care costs or health insurance premiums. In fact, he wants to repeal the one plan we currently have. I am against this.
7) Cain is for dropping the inheritance tax, dropping taxes on repatriate profits for companies and dropping capital gains taxes. Terrible ideas.

Knock yourself out.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

And Cain's plan won't tax capital gains. Which means a wealthy person who earns his income from capital gains will pay exactly $0 in income taxes.

How is that fair?

I'm not necessarily promoting Cain's plan. In my perfect world, dollars gained would be 'income', whether through sweat or shrewd investing, and taxed at 9%.

I'm ultimately in favor of fair and simple taxes. If Cains plan actually allows investors to pay nothing on what their money earns for them, shame on it - it must be fixed.