9% Income tax
9% Business flat tax
9% National Sales tax

Second move would be to the FairTax.

Now my question is, being a supporter of the FairTax, how do we get to the FairTax from 9-9-9? Levying a new tax for Congress to raise in the future and expecting to later repeal the income tax is dangerous.

I don't suspect that Republicans will have the majorities required to do so in either the House or the Senate in the near future.

So if the Democrats get control in 4 years after Cain takes office, how do we prevent them raising both income and national sales tax? Or creating tax exemptions for certain low income brackets? That would be their dream.

(10-06-2011 04:17 PM)techfan4 Wrote:  9% Income tax
9% Business flat tax
9% National Sales tax

Second move would be to the FairTax.

Now my question is, being a supporter of the FairTax, how do we get to the FairTax from 9-9-9? Levying a new tax for Congress to raise in the future and expecting to later repeal the income tax is dangerous.

I don't suspect that Republicans will have the majorities required to do so in either the House or the Senate in the near future.

So if the Democrats get control in 4 years after Cain takes office, how do we prevent them raising both income and national sales tax? Or creating tax exemptions for certain low income brackets? That would be their dream.

The Fair Tax would only come go into effect the day after the 16th Amendment was repealed. Yes, the 9-9-9 is a plan, they do have the plan in writing, but Herman Cain couldn't do it on his own. It would take "actual" work within the Congress and, from what I've read about it, those numbers cannot change and if they do, they change for everyone making it damn near impossible to jack up due to the same reasons the Fair Tax wouldn't get jacked up, namely, because it removes class warfare. Anyone bitching about a 9% sales tax really needs to understand that they're already paying an embedded 22%, that would be removed and replaced by 9&, I.e. your products would come down in price. The reason it's viable is because it'll make every consumer a tax payer.

People wonder how the Fair Tax works, and many mistakenly think it's a 30% sales tax when you add the +/- 7% state income tax. This is untrue. You'll wind up paying about 1-2% over what you're paying now. How can that be? Because the market would dictate these companies remove the 22% they won't be paying once it's removed and pass the savings onto the consumer. If one company doesn't, the other damn sure will to get better marketshare. Add the additional 23% back into it, and you're paying about 101-102% for what you're paying now. I.e. you'll be paying 102 dollars for something that costs 100 now, but you'll be keeping your entire paycheck, minus state taxes. The reason it's feasible is because 1-2% sales tax spread out over 300+ million people is a ****-ton of money.

I don't exactly know where the 9-9-9 plan came from, but after reading about it, I do like it as a transitional tax plan. It's truly a fair system.

I'm afraid of it because I think congress would abuse it and we'd up with 25%, 25%, 25% in a decade lol. I'd rather repel the income tax and have a VAT or National Sales Tax alone. No corporate or income tax. Maybe still estate taxes to prevent the concentration of wealth in a few hands, but you'd have to repel the ability to create tax free trusts to make that viable.

(10-06-2011 06:47 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I'm afraid of it because I think congress would abuse it and we'd up with 25%, 25%, 25% in a decade lol.

Never happen because it would happen to EVERYONE, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Republican alike. These people can't even come up with a budget together because they're scared of their constituents; can you see them, en masse, going to their constituents to tell them they're raising their taxes? EVERYONE would start looking at wasteful government spending and corporate cronyism. This pitting one group against the other sh*t needs to stop. Either that of if you don't pay taxes, your ass doesn't vote.

(10-06-2011 08:05 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 06:47 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I'm afraid of it because I think congress would abuse it and we'd up with 25%, 25%, 25% in a decade lol.

Never happen because it would happen to EVERYONE, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Republican alike. These people can't even come up with a budget together because they're scared of their constituents; can you see them, en masse, going to their constituents to tell them they're raising their taxes? EVERYONE would start looking at wasteful government spending and corporate cronyism. This pitting one group against the other sh*t needs to stop. Either that of if you don't pay taxes, your ass doesn't vote.

Liberals are fine with raising taxes to 100% as long as they get to give out the perks. That's why I'm afraid.

(10-06-2011 08:19 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 08:05 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 06:47 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I'm afraid of it because I think congress would abuse it and we'd up with 25%, 25%, 25% in a decade lol.

Never happen because it would happen to EVERYONE, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Republican alike. These people can't even come up with a budget together because they're scared of their constituents; can you see them, en masse, going to their constituents to tell them they're raising their taxes? EVERYONE would start looking at wasteful government spending and corporate cronyism. This pitting one group against the other sh*t needs to stop. Either that of if you don't pay taxes, your ass doesn't vote.

Liberals are fine with raising taxes to 100% as long as they get to give out the perks. That's why I'm afraid.

There are no perks under the 9-9-9. They aren't there under the Fair Tax either.

Cain's 9-9-9 is basically my 15-15-15, with a lower rate for two reasons:

1. It does not appear that he is funding a Boortz-Linder prefund, and
2. His proposal is revenue-neutral with current law, whereas I was raising about $400 billion of additional revenue (net of prefund) to reduce the budget deficit.

What is clear from either, and perhaps somewhat surprising to some, is how you can raise massive amounts of tax revenues with low tax rates if you eliminate loopholes and broaden the base.

(10-06-2011 09:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Cain's 9-9-9 is basically my 15-15-15, with a lower rate for two reasons:

1. It does not appear that he is funding a Boortz-Linder prefund, and
2. His proposal is revenue-neutral with current law, whereas I was raising about $400 billion of additional revenue (net of prefund) to reduce the budget deficit.

What is clear from either, and perhaps somewhat surprising to some, is how you can raise massive amounts of tax revenues with low tax rates if you eliminate loopholes and broaden the base.

My friends and I have been saying that same thing for a while now. I couldn't agree more.

(10-06-2011 08:19 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 08:05 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 06:47 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I'm afraid of it because I think congress would abuse it and we'd up with 25%, 25%, 25% in a decade lol.

Never happen because it would happen to EVERYONE, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Republican alike. These people can't even come up with a budget together because they're scared of their constituents; can you see them, en masse, going to their constituents to tell them they're raising their taxes? EVERYONE would start looking at wasteful government spending and corporate cronyism. This pitting one group against the other sh*t needs to stop. Either that of if you don't pay taxes, your ass doesn't vote.

Liberals are fine with raising taxes to 100% as long as they get to give out the perks. That's why I'm afraid.

Why can't you guys ever have a sensible policy discussion without putting out utter crap like this. No "liberal" is advocating for anything of the sort.

Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

(10-07-2011 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

If the righties get all three-house,senate, presidency, almost all the amendments they don't like will disappear(which is apparently most of them)-except for the second amendment.

(10-07-2011 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

If the righties get all three-house,senate, presidency, almost all the amendments they don't like will disappear(which is apparently most of them)-except for the second amendment.

to quote tom, "Why can't you guys ever have a sensible policy discussion without putting out utter crap like this."

(10-07-2011 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

If the righties get all three-house,senate, presidency, almost all the amendments they don't like will disappear(which is apparently most of them)-except for the second amendment.

They had it before, you jackas*. Did you see any repealing of an amendment? Do you know "how" you repeal an amendment? Or can I just go ahead and assume that you're an idiot?

(10-07-2011 08:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 08:19 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Liberals are fine with raising taxes to 100% as long as they get to give out the perks. That's why I'm afraid.

Why can't you guys ever have a sensible policy discussion without putting out utter crap like this. No "liberal" is advocating for anything of the sort.

In fairness, I think almost ALL politicians favor the current system for that reason. Without the ability to manipulate, the lose power. Rather than creating tax incentives to make people do things they don't want to do, the government would actually have to do it themselves.

Imagine if FNMA were "on balance sheet" for the government rather than this quasi-funding with tons of private money.

(10-07-2011 12:13 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

If the righties get all three-house,senate, presidency, almost all the amendments they don't like will disappear(which is apparently most of them)-except for the second amendment.

They had it before, you jackas*. Did you see any repealing of an amendment? Do you know "how" you repeal an amendment? Or can I just go ahead and assume that you're an idiot?

That was my point Rebel. With the process required to get an amendment repealed, I see little chance of it ever happening for this one.

(10-07-2011 11:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

If the righties get all three-house,senate, presidency, almost all the amendments they don't like will disappear(which is apparently most of them)-except for the second amendment.

to quote tom, "Why can't you guys ever have a sensible policy discussion without putting out utter crap like this."

+1

(10-07-2011 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 12:13 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 08:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, you mentioned repealing the 16th amendment. What odds do you give to that ever happening?

If the righties get all three-house,senate, presidency, almost all the amendments they don't like will disappear(which is apparently most of them)-except for the second amendment.

They had it before, you jackas*. Did you see any repealing of an amendment? Do you know "how" you repeal an amendment? Or can I just go ahead and assume that you're an idiot?

That was my point Rebel. With the process required to get an amendment repealed, I see little chance of it ever happening for this one.

It's about educating the Dumb Masses on what an utter failure and disaster that our current tax structure has become. We're nearing the tipping point where the minority will pay ALL taxes. EVERYONE needs skin in the game for this to where, everyone. Every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane.

Just a suggestion...if you attempt to educate them by calling them dumb, I don't like your chances.

(10-07-2011 01:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just a suggestion...if you attempt to educate them by calling them dumb, I don't like your chances.

too many people can't accept the truth