[jimmydean]

Dante and others, what say you about Cain's 9-9-9 deal (9 percent tax rate on personal income, a 9 percent tax rate on corporate income, and a 9 percent national sales tax)?

Not sure I like the idea of a national sales tax, but what other consumption-type taxes would help close the gap? And wouldn't that keep some people from spending, therefore not paying?

 

[Silver]

Who cares? Go find a homeless guy on the corner, and ask him about his tax plan. It's more relevant

 

[dante]

I'm automatically suspicious of anyone pushing some wild alternative plan. Remember, taxes are a zero-sum game, so our choices are either we get hit with more taxes (and usually the GOP wants more taxes to fall on the poor/middle class like the "fair" tax), or we collect less in taxes and our debt goes up.

On this particular idea I haven't seen the breakdown of exactly how it would impact certain groups, but rough back-of-the-napkin math says it will benefit the wealthy and screw everyone else. Assuming that this is a revenue-neutral tax plan (ie, it will take in exactly the same amount as now) and that it only replaces the federal income tax, the following will happen:

1) Rich people will pay less in taxes, and the rest get screwed. Here are the effective tax rates for the various levels of people in the US. Note that the top quintile pay an effective tax rate of ~14% (top quintile is above $88k/year for the family). The more money you earn, the less you need to spend on living expenses. So lets say for a family with a taxable income of $100k, they spend ~$20k on taxable living expenses. They'll pay $9k in income taxes, and $1,800 in the federal sales tax. Total taxes $10,800, or just under 11% of their total taxable income.

For someone richer (let's say $200k/year) with the exact same living expenses, they'll pay $19,800 ($18k + $1,800 in sales tax), or less than 10% of their total taxable income. Someone who makes $1m/year and is able to live on that same $20k/year taxable living expenses (make food at home, don't eat out, don't buy a new car, etc) would still pay less than 10% of their income in taxes instead of the ~20% that they're paying now.

Flip that around and say that someone making $50k (middle quintile between $33k and $55k) a year has $20k in taxable living expenses (and bear in mind that NOTHING has been said about what that constitutes; does it exclude food, rent, houses, etc?). They pay 3.3% now, and if this goes through they'll have to pay $4,500 in income taxes and $1,800 in sales tax, for a grand total of 13% of their total taxable income in federal taxes.

2) A consumption tax when our economy is based on consumption is a very, very, very, VERY dangerous idea. It might be good medicine, but encouraging people *not* to spend money when 70% of our economy is based on people spending money seems like financial suicide to me. We're still stuck in a rut due to deflation brought about by decreased demand, and we're going to add a 9% incentive for people not to spend money? Just think of it this way, you'll have a 9% incentive to save the money rather than spend it.

3) About the only thing I like about it is the long-term trend towards encouraging savings as opposed to consumption. However, that also means it will benefit people who have money to save, and punish those who don't.

4) No clue on the corporate income tax, or how it would work with LLCs, deductions, etc. You *have* to still have deductions since otherwise you'd be paying 9% on your entire revenue. Therefore companies could still write off costs, both fixed and incremental, and so who knows what their actual tax situation would be.

Shrug, I'd like to see more specifics, and with the flat tax there's a subsidy for lower income families so I wonder if there's going to be one here as well? Otherwise you're asking someone making ~$34k (2nd lowest quintile) to go from 0 (actually -0.4%) up to $3k just in income taxes and then a consumption tax piled on top of that. There's NO way that would work for someone bordering on the US poverty level to cough up an extra $3500 or $4000 in taxes. NONE.

So doing the math myself I'm even more leery than I was before I started the post....

 

[ohio]

Idiotic. In every possible way. Specifically designed to appeal to the simple-minded who will like how low the number 9 sounds, and not understand anything else about it.

 

[Silver]

Idiotic. In every possible way. Specifically designed to appeal to the simple-minded who will like how low the number 9 sounds, and not understand anything else about it.

Americans?

 

[Toshi]

Idiotic. In every possible way. Specifically designed to appeal to the simple-minded who will like how low the number 9 sounds, and not understand anything else about it.

In being targeted to the lowest common denominator it somehow becomes a crafty proposal...

 

[dante]

In being targeted to the lowest common denominator it somehow becomes a crafty proposal...

Yup. The more I think about it, the more I hate it. People see "OMFG, 9%!!!" and not realize that they're only paying ~3% today. They hear the GOP spinmeisters talking 35, 45, 50+% taxes, and think that they're getting soaked.

And on the flip side, the most that a rich person/family could EVER pay would be 18%, and that would require them to spend every single penny that they make on taxable goods. They'd probably be paying far closer to 12% instead, as opposed to the low to mid-20s that they're paying now. Basically a hand-out to the richest people in this country, and screwing the rest. Fawk him.

 

[jimmydean]

During my talk with Joe last night (see the DADT thread), he was under the impression the poor folks just need to pay more (same as the GOP, I guess) and he thinks big business should get more tax breaks to stimulate jobs.

When I pointed out that tax breaks for companies haven't created many jobs, only fatter salaries for execs, he brought up the solar company debacle. When I brought up the fact that the solar company got less in US funds than what Halliburton has "lost" ($13 billion in “questioned” or “unsupported” costs) in the last 10 years, he got quiet.

Thanks, Dante. I had some idea of how the numbers played out, but seeing them makes it much worse.

 

[dante]

During my talk with Joe last night (see the DADT thread), he was under the impression the poor folks just need to pay more (same as the GOP, I guess) and he thinks big business should get more tax breaks to stimulate jobs.

When I pointed out that tax breaks for companies haven't created many jobs, only fatter salaries for execs, he brought up the solar company debacle. When I brought up the fact that the solar company got less in US funds than what Halliburton has "lost" ($13 billion in “questioned” or “unsupported” costs) in the last 10 years, he got quiet.

Thanks, Dante. I had some idea of how the numbers played out, but seeing them makes it much worse.

If your buddies stationed as active duty guard in Iraq, does he realize that he's (probably) part of the "poor" that would be paying far more in taxes?

 

[Silver]

If your buddies stationed as active duty guard in Iraq, does he realize that he's (probably) part of the "poor" that would be paying far more in taxes?

Of course not.

He's a producer, not just a member of the most socialist organization in the United States

 

[Pesqueeb]

Since I apparently must spread, all I have to add right now with my limited time, is that this thread has the best thread title EVAR!

 

[kidwoo]

Idiotic. In every possible way. Specifically designed to appeal to the simple-minded who will like how low the number 9 sounds,

Dude what are you talking about!!??


There's fvckin' THREE of them!!!



edit: actually I just realized that cain is well.....he's fvckin CAIN!!! I mean 3 sixes upside down?? Figures, him bein a spook and all.

Bachman 2012!!!

 

[jonKranked]

its a bunch of trickery, just "666" upside down

 

[kidwoo]

Hey I called that first!!

 

[DaveW]

its a bunch of trickery, just "666" upside down

Yup that's what it looks like from down under.

 

[dante]

So, went for a walk this afternoon with the wife, and started brainstorming the 999 plan... Realized some pretty mind-blowing aspects:

1) Any monetary asset you own faces an immediate 9% tax. Since for most middle-class Americans, it's assumed that they'll spend it eventually. Savings that you have now will be spent on a house, car, boat, food during hardship, etc. You'll have to pay 9% on whatever you buy, so that $100k that you have in savings will, in theory, be subject to a 9% tax when you spend it. Obviously wealthy Americans who are more likely to invest it than spend it won't face that 9% on their wealth, since they'll buy stocks (non-taxable) as opposed to cars (taxable).

2) Any retirement savings you own faces an immediate 9% tax. You have $200k socked away for retirement? Well, consider this plan an immediate $18k tax on it, since you'll end up having to pay 9% taxes on whatever you end up spending that money on. If you're planning on spending that money on heating oil and food, well you'd better be prepared to have 9% less to spend on it.

2.a) You were responsible and converted that Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA? Aaaaahahahahahahaha. You just paid 20, 25, 35% income tax on the amount that will now be taxed an additional 9%. If you left it as a Traditional IRA you still face the 9%, but didn't have to pay income taxes on it since you never had to declare it as income.

3) Any non-monetary asset you faces an immediate 18% tax!! Yup, you face a double-tax on whatever non-monetary asset you own (ie, house). Just think, when you sell it, the buyer has to pay 9% on the purchase price, meaning your asset is worth 9% less than it is now.... however, when you turn around and spend that money, you have to spend 9% in tax as well. So if your house is worth $200k, with a 9% national sales tax it's really only worth $182k. So you sell it for $182k, and buy a house in another part of the country for $200k, and *you* now have to pay 9%. Basically if you get hit when you sell something, and then hit when you spend money on something else, you get hit for the tax twice.

4) There would be *no* incentive to save for retirement. At all. With no deductions for an IRA/401(k), there'd be no incentive to specifically put money away for retirement as opposed to just dumping it into a general mutual fund (that could be dipped into whenever)...

God, this is worse than I thought at the beginning.

 

[BIGHITR]

Idiotic. In every possible way. Specifically designed to appeal to the simple-minded who will like how low the number 9 sounds, and not understand anything else about it.

simple minded = Iowa farmers.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Scary stuff

It's irrelevant. While platitudes like the 9-9-9 tax plan appeal to idiots everywhere, I'm not worried. I've said it before and I'll say it again, todays GOP will NEVER nominate a black guy. Not going to happen. If Rick Perry was smart enough to count to 9, and this was his plan, I might be more worried, but its not, so I'm not.

 

[stevew]

simple minded = Iowa farmers.

you're a farmer?

 

[JohnE]

It is only a theory, postulated in prepping for a primary that the GoP has no intent of nominating this guy in. Why waste time thinking about it? Besides, if by some odd chance he becomes POTUS, the idea will never get through Congress...

 

[IH8Rice]

So, went for a walk this afternoon with the wife, and started brainstorming the 999 plan... Realized some pretty mind-blowing aspects:

arent walks with the wifey suppose to be fun?

 

[ohio]

no that's "walks" with the wife. Not to be confused with actual walks with the wife.

 

[Jim Mac]

its a bunch of trickery, just "666" upside down

LATE PASS!
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?246032-Is-Herman-Caine-an-inverted-devil

 

[dante]

arent walks with the wifey suppose to be fun?

Sorry, we're and actually enjoy discussions like this. Aside from the soul-crushing thought that Americans might actually vote for t his guy, that is...

 

[DamienC]

The Hermanator has been playing too much SimCity.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Guess who also happens to be a Koch sucker?

 

[X3pilot]

you're a farmer?

PLEASE don't tag this thread, you know where it will go...

 

[Hello Kitty]

Although I am not a Ron Paul supporter/kook/libertarian nobody has a better plan than this…PERIOD

RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RONPAUL2012.COM

SYNOPSIS:
America is the greatest nation in human history.
Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and
limited constitutional government produced the
strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But,
we have dri!ed far from our founding principles, and
America is in crisis.

Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the
brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional
government. It is bold but achievable. "rough the bully
pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and,
most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving
Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms.

DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET
IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY:
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just
talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan
to get it done.

SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the #rst year
of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating #ve cabinet
departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and
Education), abolishing the Transportation Security
Administration and returning responsibility for security
to private property owners, abolishing corporate
subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and
returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

ENTITLEMENTS:
Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans,
while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants
Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States
the $exibility and ingenuity they need to solve their
own unique problems without harming those currently
relying on the programs.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:
Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce,
slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs
excessive federal travel. To stand with the American
People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336,
approximately equal to the median personal income of
the American worker.

TAXES:
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making
America competitive in the global market. Allows
American companies to repatriate capital without
additional taxation, spurring trillions in new
investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the
Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing
families to build a nest egg.

REGULATION:
Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-
Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for
thorough congressional review and authorization
before implementing any new regulations issued by
bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous
regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

MONETARY POLICY:
Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve
and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize in$ation.

CONCLUSION:
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut
spending and truly balance the budget. "is is the only
plan that will deliver what America needs in these
di%cult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending
cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

 

[ohio]

nobody has a better plan than this…PERIOD[/B]

I was gonna call bull****, but the blue font convinced me. Simpson-Bowles has nothing on Ron Paul's plan to turn off the damn lights when you leave a room.

 

[dante]

Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-
Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for
thorough congressional review and authorization
before implementing any new regulations issued by
bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous
regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

Right, because over-regulation is what caused this whole financial crisis in the first place...

I also chuckled at this:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans,
while allowing young workers to opt out.

What if I don't want to opt-out? What if I'm pretty happy with SS as it is right now, and want to keep it exactly as it is? Something tells me that that's not really going to be an option with Paultard's plan.

 

[Hello Kitty]

Right, because over-regulation is what caused this whole financial crisis in the first place...

?Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence? - John Adams

HOW DEMOCRATS CREATED THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

VIDEOS: AN EASY WAY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE CRISIS WAS ORCHESTRATED

1. Timeline & warnings

2. Dems: There is no crisis

3. Dems forced the banks

4. How Dems did it

5. Dems blocked regulators

6. Dem: Benefit from a crisis

 

[syadasti]

Under the largest expansion of government in the history of our country Bush also ignored the experts with his plan.

Nobel Laureates, 450 Other Economists Fault Bush Tax Cut Plan: Dividend Tax Cut Called 'Misdirected' - Feb 10, 2003:

ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT OPPOSING THE BUSH TAX CUTS

Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising. In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.

The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.

To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.

Bush Tax Cuts Past and Future

Freddie Mac secretly paid GOP consulting firm to kill regulation

 

[Hello Kitty]

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” -Winston Churchill

REPUBLICANS TRIED TO STOP THE CRISIS
DEMOCRAT OPPOSED REGULATIONS

Democrats opposed bills giving power to regulators to control Freddie & Fannie (Bloomberg)

MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac"
GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): "I am PISSED OFF at OFHEO [the regulators]"
BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): "I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger… I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster."

Check the Congressional Records that show how Democrats opposed regulating Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (two of the seeds of today's financial meltdown):

--->Hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services (H.R. 2575) (2003)
--->Hearing on Accounting Failure at Fannie Mae (2004) (PDF)

 

[Silver]

God, I hope N8 goes and DIAF. A real one, so I don't have to keep wading through **** like this.

 

[Hello Kitty]

God, I hope N8 goes and DIAF. A real one, so I don't have to keep wading through **** like this.

truth hurts

 

[Hello Kitty]

“The first reaction to truth is hatred”

DEMOCRATS GAVE MORTGAGE TO LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY (ProudToBeCanadian)

CLINTON & DEMOCRAT CONGRESS SET THE TIME-BOMB
"....This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the CLINTON ERA.
Before the Democrats’ affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS "mandated that FANNIE and FREDDIE increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains.” by selling their houses. A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it’s gone off.
Instead of looking at “outdated criteria,” such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness...
THREATENING LAWSUITS, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke—it’s a fact.

 

[stevew]

truth hurts

was it inserted up your ass...dry?

 

[Hello Kitty]

ACORN agitators go into banks/homes to intimidate bankers into making loans to risky borrowers. Then when risky borrowers could not pay their mortgages, ACORN will protest the foreclosures (!!!)

WAMU is now Chase and this is one reason why.

 

[jonKranked]

that's it, i'm putting all my investments into tin foil.

 

[dante]

Lol, love the re-writing history on blaming the CRA and *not* corporate greed for the housing boom/bust.

Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][122] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[123]

Or the fact that F&F issued only 16% of the subprime loans of 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

I'd appreciate the mental challenges of an actual right-wing troll, but you're just.... lazy. Copy/pasting from various right-wing websites shouldn't even elicit a response.

edit: Found where you copy/pasted all of that crap from. If you can't come up with a rational, coherent thought of your own, you're going to get laughed out of this forum just about every single time.