Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/2/2011 9:48:34 AM EST
I'm not sure on the numbers, but people say that 50% of americans do not pay any federal taxes. Under 999, 50% of americans would bring home 9% less and then have an additional 9% tax on whatever new goods they purchased. Am I missing something here?

Now, I am one of the 50% who does not pay any federal taxes (I am a college student and my wife and I take home about $30,000 a year total) so my taxes will go up. I am ok with this because I don't believe that the current system of half the people paying all the taxes is fair. However, most people in my situation are not going to think the same thing. How do you defend this to them? Do you say that the economy will improve under this plan and that they will have better paying jobs available? Or do you just tell them it is more fair?



P.S. As of right now I am a Cain supporter.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 9:51:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 9:54:05 AM EST by MshakeMO]
I hope it's just a way to transition to the fair tax. It's still far better than what we have now.

ETA- I'm tarded.... just read through it on his website. All for it.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 9:52:23 AM EST
It seems more fair to me because EVERYONE would be paying the same rate. It's not perfect, but I think it's a great way to transition over to a Fair Tax type of system. (FYI I fall in the same tax bracket as the OP since I'm a full time student).
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 9:52:31 AM EST
While not being particularly familiar with Cain's plan but with a passing knowledge of other tax reforms that have come to pass or nearly have in this country, I'd say that there will be savings (real or imagined) somewhere else that will allow the little man to "get on board", and that the bulk of revenue will still be coming from the upper class and perhaps by removing certain avenues for businesses/ the very rich to "tax dodge".

While I do not dislike Cain I would be surprised if his popularity was anything other than flash in the pan. Media will tear him up for being a rich man / business person / black / race traitor.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 9:56:42 AM EST
Some numbers from Christian Science Monitor

"Thus, Cain’s proposal would result in an individual who makes $20,000 per year, paying $1,800 in income taxes, plus another $1,605 in sales taxes, assuming they spend 98 percent of their income. The combined income and sales taxes would amount to 17 percent of income.

By way of comparison, using today’s tax rates, that individual – married filing separately – would pay $2,575 in combined taxes or 12.8 percent of their income, according to the website moneychimp.com.

A middle income taxpayer that makes $55,000 per year would pay $9,319 in combined taxes, coming to 16.9 percent of their income. Today, that individual would pay $9,875 and would pay 17.95 percent of their income in taxes."

Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:01:57 AM EST
A federal sales tax is unconstitutional, not that it will stop them.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:16:04 AM EST
What is to prevent the next regime from making it the 20-20-20 plan?

Right now I lose 10% of my gross to the feds. No rugrats, and a paid for house. 10%. With 999 I give up another 9% in VAT, and through some sort of black magic all my purchases are alleged to drop by more than 9% No way to insure any of that, but the 9% "bite" is for real.

When canada went to the PST/GST mess, retailers jacked prices a couple of percent to cover the added costs of collecting that tax. Same thing would happen with 999.

I simply have no faith that a VAT will not become an added revenue that the demonrats can play games with.

.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:18:40 AM EST
Libs are against the Fair Tax, for instance, because it requires "the poor" to actually pay taxes. So I'm sure 999 will be attacked along the same lines.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:29:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 10:29:53 AM EST by scottedward58]
I haven't done any checking on this but if he gets this 9-9-9 plan passed what is he going to do with all the current hidden taxes such as what we pay on guns, ammo, a gallon of gas, alcohol or tobacco? A 9% sales tax wouldn't even begin to cover the revenue lost on those things.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:33:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By packnru:
A federal sales tax is unconstitutional, not that it will stop them.


The Constitution makes no limitation on the types of taxes Congress may impose, as long as they are equitable state to state. The income tax amendment was arguably unnecessary.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:35:11 AM EST
If 100% of adults with jobs pay taxes wouldn't that bring in a ton more money?
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:39:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By c86man:
I'm not sure on the numbers, but people say that 50% of americans do not pay any federal taxes. Under 999, 50% of americans would bring home 9% less and then have an additional 9% tax on whatever new goods they purchased. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are. His plan will never materialize. Period.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:40:29 AM EST
fair tax would tax everyone. its the easiest way to make lots of money for .gov and give people choice. you dont want to pay tax? dont buy the good or service.

i will support the 9-9-9 plan, but only if it is passed into law for x period while saying that as of x date, the fair tax will replace it... the 16th amendment needs to be repealed as well for this to work.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:41:25 AM EST
Who cares if he gets lower income people on board. They tend to vote democratic as a group anyhow. Unless $35-$50k is low income.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:41:56 AM EST
9-9-9 upside down is 6-6-6

Draw your own conclusions.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:44:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By BustinCaps:
Who cares if he gets lower income people on board. They tend to vote democratic as a group anyhow. Unless $35-$50k is low income.


LOL, right? Fuck em'

I hope to hell Cain gets elected.

There is actually a good chance he'll get it passed as well, we'll control the House by a wide margin, and the Senate come 2012.


Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:44:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:44:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packnru:
A federal sales tax is unconstitutional, not that it will stop them.


The Constitution makes no limitation on the types of taxes Congress may impose, as long as they are equitable state to state. The income tax amendment was arguably unnecessary.


This link explains it better than I can.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/Federal-Sales-or-VAT-Tax-Is-Unconstitutional.htm
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:46:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
9-9-9 upside down is 6-6-6

Draw your own conclusions.

i hope youre joking..
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:47:56 AM EST
Not perfect but significantly better than what we have right now.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:48:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By natedog375:
Some numbers from Christian Science Monitor

"Thus, Cain’s proposal would result in an individual who makes $20,000 per year, paying $1,800 in income taxes, plus another $1,605 in sales taxes, assuming they spend 98 percent of their income. The combined income and sales taxes would amount to 17 percent of income.

By way of comparison, using today’s tax rates, that individual – married filing separately – would pay $2,575 in combined taxes or 12.8 percent of their income, according to the website moneychimp.com.

A middle income taxpayer that makes $55,000 per year would pay $9,319 in combined taxes, coming to 16.9 percent of their income. Today, that individual would pay $9,875 and would pay 17.95 percent of their income in taxes."


Exept that today, the individual making $20k a year will pay nothing and just might get money back thru EITC, but they most definitely will get money back if they have kids through ACTC and deductions for kids.

When I got back from AFG and had $20k + in taxable income, with $3k paid in taxes that I got back, I got an additional $6k back through those two programs. That is a drain on the system, just cutting out that drain would be highly beneficial. (no I was not counting on getting back any more than I paid in, but the software for H&R Block doesn't ask, it just does and I spent it on new windows for the house).
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:50:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:51:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 10:54:47 AM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Originally Posted By packnru:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packnru:
A federal sales tax is unconstitutional, not that it will stop them.


The Constitution makes no limitation on the types of taxes Congress may impose, as long as they are equitable state to state. The income tax amendment was arguably unnecessary.


This link explains it better than I can.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/Federal-Sales-or-VAT-Tax-Is-Unconstitutional.htm


Plenty of "links" explain it. "Conservatives" have a shitload of elaborate apologetic explanations to hold up certain ideological charades. Meanwhile, the plain english of the Constitution says, "Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."

This is not limited, it is a very strong power. It is the first one listed for good reason, as it is integral to an understanding of why the Constitution was written in the first place!
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:54:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packnru:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By packnru:
A federal sales tax is unconstitutional, not that it will stop them.


The Constitution makes no limitation on the types of taxes Congress may impose, as long as they are equitable state to state. The income tax amendment was arguably unnecessary.


This link explains it better than I can.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/Federal-Sales-or-VAT-Tax-Is-Unconstitutional.htm


Plenty of "links" explain it. "Conservatives" have a shitload of elaborate apologetic explanations to hold up certain ideological charades. Meanwhile, the plain english of the Constitution says, "Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."

This is not limited, it is a very strong power. It is the first one listed for good reason, as it is integral to an understanding of the the Constitution was written in the first place!

plus the 16th amendment which allows income taxes..
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:54:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By Lem:
What is to prevent the next regime from making it the 20-20-20 plan?

Right now I lose 10% of my gross to the feds. No rugrats, and a paid for house. 10%. With 999 I give up another 9% in VAT, and through some sort of black magic all my purchases are alleged to drop by more than 9% No way to insure any of that, but the 9% "bite" is for real.

When canada went to the PST/GST mess, retailers jacked prices a couple of percent to cover the added costs of collecting that tax. Same thing would happen with 999.

I simply have no faith that a VAT will not become an added revenue that the demonrats can play games with.

.



Using what "the next guy" might do as an argument is complete and utter bullshit.

Might as well say "Obama wants Hope and Change - but what happens if the next guy doesn't?"

Does it change anything about the candidate and his platform? No.
Does it change anything that the next guy, or the next Congress, might do? No.
Does it change the MERIT of Cain's argument in any way? No.

Then why does this logical fallacy keep popping up in reference ONLY to Cain's ideas and virtually no one's elses? As if "what the next guy" might do has any relevancy whatsoever...

Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:54:57 AM EST
I have not gotten any money back in a long time

Top Top