Herman Cain

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

How do I figure he wants to continue this? Well, for starters, he wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class but not the rich.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: How do I figure he wants to continue this? Well, for starters, he wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class but not the rich.

Dude. Seriously. You can say that you think that this is the effect of his tax plan, and we can have an intelligent discussion. If you really think that is the goal, then I'm not sure what to say.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

If this isn't his goal, then he is really, really not good with math.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also went after Cain, pointing to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that found 94 percent of Americans would see a tax hike under his plan.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: How do I figure he wants to continue this? Well, for starters, he wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class but not the rich.

Dude. Seriously. You can say that you think that this is the effect of his tax plan, and we can have an intelligent discussion. If you really think that is the goal, then I'm not sure what to say.

The flat tax rate is going to affect the poor more then the rich because 9% of a poor person's paycheck is going to hurt them a lot more.

94% includes the over 50% who pay nothing now

Well, as a solid member of the middle class with a two income family of five, I completely endorse the idea of a flat tax with few/no loopholes and/or a consumption tax rather than the current income tax with breaks for everything.

Here's an opinion-based article from the WSJ. The author is a noted economist (revered by some, reviled by others) who has researched the 9-9-9 plan. His review notes that those living below the "poverty line" are exempted. Funny how people are ignorant of that point, or just refuse to acknowledge it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637310315367804.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

In reply to tuna55:

I am not opposed to some sort of flat tax either. But I suspect the most efficient way of doing things would be to grossly simply our current tax code.

Regardless, I suspect getting congress to really simply the tax code, whether it be through a flat tax, consumption tax, or using the current framework might be an impossible tax. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is just a campaign slogan. It has no chance.

Link to his plan. It is really short on details. And I might have overlooked it, but I don't see anything about the poverty line.

tuna55 wrote: Well, as a solid member of the middle class with a two income family of five, I completely endorse the idea of a flat tax with few/no loopholes and/or a consumption tax rather than the current income tax with breaks for everything.

50k @ 10% = 5k leaving 45k
100k @ 10% = 10k leaving 90k
1M @ 10% = 100k leaving 900k

I cannot see how anyone cannot make the leap that 5k off of 50k hurts way more than 100k off 1M and is not "paying their fair share" it is raping them.

So you are voting against your own best interests and those of everyone below you financially. Why?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Well, as a solid member of the middle class with a two income family of five, I completely endorse the idea of a flat tax with few/no loopholes and/or a consumption tax rather than the current income tax with breaks for everything.

50k @ 10% = 5k leaving 45k 100k @ 10% = 10k leaving 90k 1M @ 10% = 100k leaving 900k I cannot see how anyone cannot make the leap that 5k off of 50k hurts way more than 100k off 1M and is not "paying their fair share" it is raping them. So you are voting against your own best interests and those of everyone below you financially. Why?

Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

GPS, what line of work are you in?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes.

No surprise here.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

I would argue that if I do something great at work and get a 30k raise that I should have to pay more OF IT, just more. That's punishing success. Fair means equal percentage, not some arbitrary, flavor of the moment distribution that we make up. Anytime you attempt to do that, even if it was a good idea, you allow politics and campaigning to shape policy to get votes. Then you have Greece.

Snowdoggie wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

I don't have solid numbers here, but if the Koch brothers are anything like Buffet, they don't pay anything now. Even through their tax RATE is reduced, they'd likely pay MORE. Pay attention, people.

Cain made the cardinal sin of actually proposing a plan. It gave his opponents plenty of material to shred him.

I like that he offered a suggestion.

So, what are the other candidates suggestions? Mr. Obama's plan appears to be "Let's borrow lots more and spend what we don't have so we can win the election by buying votes, to Hell with the future". That one doesn't work so good for me.

In reply to tuna55:

Eliminating capital gains taxes, as in Cain's plan, in effect reduces the tax burden of the rich. So pizza guy will pay 9% on his income because it is all wages, engineer guy will pay the same 9%, but Warren Buffet and his ilk who have almost all their income in investment income might only pay 1%. Does that bug you?

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to tuna55: Eliminating capital gains taxes, as in Cain's plan, in effect reduces the tax burden of the rich. So pizza guy will pay 9% on his income because it is all wages, engineer guy will pay the same 9%, but Warren Buffet and his ilk who have almost all their income in investment income might only pay 1%. Does that bug you?

That is the biggest problem I have with Cain's plan. He should leave the capital gains tax in.

How about a plan that lets the Bush-era tax cuts expire, closes loopholes that the rich use to avoid paying taxes and cuts entitlement programs?

SVreX wrote: Cain made the cardinal sin of actually proposing a plan. It gave his opponents plenty of material to shred him. I like that he offered a suggestion. So, what are the other candidates suggestions? Mr. Obama's plan appears to be "Let's borrow lots more and spend what we don't have so we can win the election by buying votes, to Hell with the future". That one doesn't work so good for me.

Amen.

Do I love his solution? No. Do I admire him for having the balls to actually a) acknowledge that there is a problem and b) propose SOMETHING? Absolutely. Sound bites and kicking the can got us here. We HAVE to fix this E36 M3.

I have mixed feelings on the capital gains tax.

The reason a low capital gains tax rate is good, is that it encourages capital investments. Capital investments play a key role in growing the economy. Ergo, a low capital gains tax rate encourages behavior that spurs economic growth.

In theory.

The reality isn't as clear.

This is going to sound like a really silly question to some of you... and I really ain't for taxing ANYONE any more than is required to fund the essential business of government...

But why should the poor not have to at least feel obligated to pay some tax? Even if we are giving it right back to them in some ridiculous failed program to help them with their plight... Why shouldn't they invest in the nation?

Heck... In the Bible.. There isn't some formula for figuring out how much money people need to live on and then starting to give... Most folks seem to agree it is a straight 10%... even if you only make 5000 per year... No matter what you make... You are supposed to be lead to give...

Now.. you can poo poo the Bible and religion all you want.. But these principles are very powerful and have proven results.. The psychological boost if gives those willing to follow ... I guess some of that is going to be a little different because nobody is rightly forcing anyone to tithe.. and the gummit isn't going to stand around waiting for volunteers...

But dang... Most of the problem with these poor folks who are making 10K or less is that that are not invested or investing in anything... including their own lives..

If they don't get the honor of helping, even in a small way of funding this great nation.. They shouldn't get to vote until they are willing or able to help even in a very small way support our way of life.

Tax dodging is a way of life around here... especially among the rich but even among the poor... The rules need simplified, and the mentality needs to change.. then the gummit needs to only ask for what it needs to conduct business it needs to be engaged in....

^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Otto Maddox wrote: How about a plan that lets the Bush-era tax cuts expire, closes loopholes that the rich use to avoid paying taxes and cuts entitlement programs?

That would make the tax code way more progressive, more than would be healthy, I would argue. Companies would flee the US to places with a lower corporate tax rate.

ronholm wrote: This is going to sound like a really silly question to some of you... and I really ain't for taxing ANYONE any more than is required to fund the essential business of government... But why should the poor not have to at least feel obligated to pay some tax? Even if we are giving it right back to them in some ridiculous failed program to help them with their plight... Why shouldn't they invest in the nation? Heck... In the Bible.. There isn't some formula for figuring out how much money people need to live on and then starting to give... Most folks seem to agree it is a straight 10%... even if you only make 5000 per year... No matter what you make... You are supposed to be lead to give... Now.. you can poo poo the Bible and religion all you want.. But these principles are very powerful and have proven results.. The psychological boost if gives those willing to follow ... I guess some of that is going to be a little different because nobody is rightly forcing anyone to tithe.. and the gummit isn't going to stand around waiting for volunteers... But dang... Most of the problem with these poor folks who are making 10K or less is that that are not invested or investing in anything... including their own lives.. If they don't get the honor of helping, even in a small way of funding this great nation.. They shouldn't get to vote until they are willing or able to help even in a very small way support our way of life. Tax dodging is a way of life around here... especially among the rich but even among the poor... The rules need simplified, and the mentality needs to change.. then the gummit needs to only ask for what it needs to conduct business it needs to be engaged in....

Nicely put.