Herman Cain

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

madmallard wrote: i'm sorry, alfa. I think i missed something. Could you fire off a few ways to avoid consumption tax that wouldn't work under other taxations types?

Since most taxes are income, I would already have it, so that's pretty easy to get around. And there are places that do not have much in ways of consuption taxes. Or are you so naive to think that there would not be tax haves created out of ideas like this? Remember prohibition- Ontario also outlawed drinking, but Canadian Club was made in Windsor, fully legally, and smuggled into the US. It's not as if there are not tax havens already in the Caribbean for companies- so lets not fool ourselves there.

You have not answered the question, Eric. How is the 9-9-9 plan unable to capture taxes which we are able to accurate capture today?

?? So saving $5M, and taking is someplace else does not address that? Really? That's kind of silly.

No, because you could do the same thing now. How are we able to capture a tax which this plan would not?

Here's another thing to remember.

If you have a 401k, it appears to be not taxed- and that is not correct- it will be taxed when you take it back out of savings.

Under the 9-9-9, if I save the exact same thing, and have enough to retire on, and leave (if you have the means to do so), ALL of that money will not be taxed under the current consumption tax.

And knowing how other countries have adjusted their laws to fit the needs of our laws, it's 100% likely that there will be a country where the consumption tax will be lower, thus taking money permanently out of the US. I would.

Heck, seeing so many states compete WITH EACH OTHER about various tax laws, it's stunning to see. Countries are not stupid.

In reply to tuna55:

IMHO, 9-9-9 would make it a more realistic option. Something I would consider for myself.

Basil Exposition wrote: The "problem" is the sales tax part of it. It would have to be adjusted to skip the basics such as food (as most state sales taxes do). The idea is to have a consumption tax, rather than an income tax. The idea is that a consumption tax would encourage earning, saving and investing versus spending. Sales taxes do tend to be regressive, however, if you skip the basics, they also tend to be optional. You can choose how much tax you pay by how much you decide to spend. To some extent, property taxes are the same way. You don't have to buy property (or that more expensive property) to pay them. Having just moved from a property tax oriented state to a state with an income tax, I can tell you which I prefer!

Yeah, you have to exempt the basics or else people start screaming "THEY WANT TO RAISE THE PRICE OF A GALLON OF MILK BY 20%!!! OMG WE ARE GOING TO STARVE!!! WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE??!!" Most places exempt food anyway (for now, some places are considering that for more revenue). If anything the consumption tax favors those who just don't buy anything, or buy everything used.

alfadriver wrote: Since most taxes are income, I would already have it, so that's pretty easy to get around. And there are places that do not have much in ways of consuption taxes. Or are you so naive to think that there would not be tax haves created out of ideas like this? Remember prohibition- Ontario also outlawed drinking, but Canadian Club was made in Windsor, fully legally, and smuggled into the US. It's not as if there are not tax havens already in the Caribbean for companies- so lets not fool ourselves there.

I'm sorry, but none of that really addressed my question... -_-

"you think they won't?" doesn't amount to an addressable answer, but more of an attitude of dismissal of my concerns. If you don't seriously want to discuss points at length, thats fine. But lets not dress up your response to be more than it is, here.

DoctorBlade wrote: He's making liberal heads explode all over the place.

Huh. Well, being about the only person on the internet willing to self identify as "fairly liberal", I'm not sure about this. Honestly, I'm hoping he wins the nomination. It seems to me has a much, much (MUCH) worse shot at winning the general than Romney. I could be wrong, though. He certainly isn't making my head explode. Main line Republicans, maybe, who want to win the White House.

What he means is sycophant race-baiters. Not people with principled feelings to the contrary such as yourself. ;p

(Breaking my own rule not to post in political threads)

Y'all really think that the President has any significant ability to influence the economy? You believe in the Easter Bunny too?

I admit a Cain vs. Obama race would be entertaining, just to watch all of the bigots squirm. Judging by the number of race-baiting Obama "jokes" that are forwarded around, there would be a lot of squirming.

Republicans vs. Democrats reminds me of Cowboys vs. Redskins - their respective fans may hate one another and they sing different fight songs, but both sides are playing the same game.

I think that aspiring to public office these days is de facto evidence of a personality disorder. I like the Jeffersonian notion that elected officials should fulfill a public service obligation for a set term, then go back to their real life.

If Bill Clinton had been able to keep his wiener in his pants, he might have gone into the history books as the best President we've had in a lifetime - hard to argue with 8 years of peace and prosperity, with a budget surplus. Mebbe we should get him a couple of Charlie Sheen hookers and prop him back up in the White House.

In reply to madmallard:

Yeah, that could be, I guess. It does create a quandry for people who want to leverage the race thing. Not a great reason to vote for someone, though. "Don't know if he's the right man for the job, but he sure is a mess for the other team!" Seems to me more of the division and contention that we need to get rid of. And what if it turns out he's just as crazy as he kinda seems like he is sometimes?

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to aussiesmg: Well, he did get a CEO job where he proceeded to make the company less than half its previous size while firing a ton of employees. He did restore profitablitity by doing this. I am not sure how that plan would work for the US as a whole.

sounds like a good start on cutting out government waste and redundancy

In reply to Strizzo:

He cut more than half of the operating units, the parts of the business that generate gross revenue. You have 25-30 states you'd like to get rid of?

Come to think of it, most people can think of a few states we could do better without.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Strizzo: He cut more than half of the operating units, the parts of the business that generate gross revenue. You have 25-30 states you'd like to get rid of? Come to think of it, most people can think of a few states we could do better without.

i think most texans can think of quite a few states we could get rid of...

And a lot of people would love to give Texas back to Mexico. There'd be no agreeing on which states.

I agree with the great David Lee Roth that there is something worthy in each part of the country.

In reply to Otto Maddox: not to stray too far off topic here, but it does kinda seem like Obama is trying to do just that with the decree to not enforce immigration laws unless someone commits a[nother] crime.

oh, and since we're going to let 80's hair decide:

Strizzo wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Strizzo: He cut more than half of the operating units, the parts of the business that generate gross revenue. You have 25-30 states you'd like to get rid of? Come to think of it, most people can think of a few states we could do better without.

i think most texans can think of quite a few states we could get rid of...

I can't think of one, and not all Texans think alike. Where do you think the term 'Maverick' came from?

bludroptop wrote: If Bill Clinton had been able to keep his wiener in his pants, he might have gone into the history books as the best President we've had in a lifetime - hard to argue with 8 years of peace and prosperity, with a budget surplus. Mebbe we should get him a couple of Charlie Sheen hookers and prop him back up in the White House.

I'd gladly take 4-8 more years of Bill.

gamby wrote: I'd gladly take 4-8 more years of Bill.

Wondering off topic, I'm afraid, but Bill was a pretty unique character.

When you look at the job, it doesn't take a lot to figure out why there aren't a load of our best and brightest lining up for it. Bill, like a lot of them, was in it for power. Bill liked the laides, and hey, "I'm the leader of the free world" is probably a pretty good line. Thing is, Bill has an IQ of like 190. I'd wager he's one of the smartest people ever to sit in that chair. It was, and still is, amazing to hear him off script talking about absurdly complex issues. He has a command of the variables involved and can weigh them all at once in a way I've never seen anyone else do it. All the while, keeping his mind on his political positions and phrasing things in the right way. If they could all do that, we wouldn't hear "talking points" all the time. That's why they do that. They can't possibly juggle so much at once, so they have to think it out in advance.

We'll be mighty lucky if we can find another pervert as smart as Bill willing to take the job.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

gamby wrote: I'd gladly take 4-8 more years of Bill.

Wondering off topic, I'm afraid, but Bill was a pretty unique character. When you look at the job, it doesn't take a lot to figure out why there aren't a load of our best and brightest lining up for it. Bill, like a lot of them, was in it for power. Bill liked the laides, and hey, "I'm the leader of the free world" is probably a pretty good line. Thing is, Bill has an IQ of like 190. I'd wager he's one of the smartest people ever to sit in that chair. It was, and still is, amazing to hear him off script talking about absurdly complex issues. He has a command of the variables involved and can weigh them all at once in a way I've never seen anyone else do it. All the while, keeping his mind on his political positions and phrasing things in the right way. If they could all do that, we wouldn't hear "talking points" all the time. That's why they do that. They can't possibly juggle so much at once, so they have to think it out in advance. We'll be mighty lucky if we can find another pervert as smart as Bill willing to take the job.

It's not like he is some kind of Rhodes Scholar or anything...

Oh wait....

bludroptop wrote: (Breaking my own rule not to post in political threads) Y'all really think that the President has any significant ability to influence the economy?

you better believe they can.

The economy is in no small part a function of business psychology.

While the president may not be able to do anything to positively influence the economy directly, you bet your crescent wrench the president has ENOURMOUS potential for negative influence on the economy by introducing instability with his agenda.

Even if he never succeed in implementing his stated agenda, (smart)businesses already start acting like he has to protect themselves.

Snowdoggie wrote: It's not like he is some kind of Rhodes Scholar or anything... Oh wait....

lol Exactly.

Clinton was a huge reason that I started to lean more to the right. Although it had been the works for a long time before him he did sign NAFTA into law which in my opinion has only benefited mexico and the companies that flocked there after it was signed. I don't care where he put his willy I do not look fondly on his imo virtually useless presidency. Cain has my white southern vote.

Oh crap I had my wisdom teeth pulled today and now I've posted an opinion in a political thread WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!

Busy watching the debates, but the fact that the liberals here are repeating the rachel maddow/joy behar/anderson vanderbilt drivel means he's doing something right.

I've had the pleasure of voting for Herman once, and I'd gladly do it again.

I see Newt as the dark-horse, and I'd love to see them on the same ticket.

Also, I'd really like to see Herman turn to Rick Perry's dumb ass and say "I'd really appreciate it if you stopped calling me 'brother' you stupid mother berkeleyer."

poopshovel wrote: Busy watching the debates, but the fact that the liberals here are repeating the rachel maddow/joy behar/anderson vanderbilt drivel means he's doing something right.

I saw Rachel Maddow in a commercial for something. She has cool glasses. Other than that, if I say anything that has anything in common with anything she says, it's just because we seem to share a few ideas. I don't watch talking heads on TV to tell me what to think. I haven't seen her show (or any of the other folk you mention) in, gosh, years. I take that back, I watched Anderson Cooper during the Egypt stuff on CNN. What a tool. "Hey, they're beating people up in the square! Let's go out there with our cameras! Wow, these folks are kinda hostile! Can you believe that?!"

Howard Gleckman said: A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. By contrast, a taxpayer in the top 0.1% (who makes more than $2.7 million) would enjoy an average tax cut of nearly$1.4 million, increasing his after-tax income by nearly 27 percent. His average effective tax rate would be cut almost in half to 17.9 percent. In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000. This would give Warren Buffet severe heartburn.

Howard Gleckman summary: and distributional analysis of 9-9-9