Vote !!!!
Could Herman Cain’s ’999′ Tax Plan Really Work?
- Thread starter Ron Musgraves
- Start date
Scott Stone
New member
It is too regressive. Capital gains needs to be struck down on stock investments, and real estate investments over a million dollars a year. They also need to do a 1% wall street transaction tax. That tax alone would generate $10 trillion dollars of revenue a year at current investment rates. Z
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
There is a problem in this country regarding regressive taxes. EDIT: - The problem is that it is not the job of the federal government to make sure you have enough to live on by taxing Americans at different rates to ensure some type of equality.
If automatic payroll deductions were eliminated and Americans were expected to pay equally of their own accord the way we are there would be a revolt like this country has never seen.
The end result would probably be an abolishment of the income tax and an amendment guaranteeing it's permanent extinction.
But the payroll extortion is quiet and bleeds the nation silently like a cut wrist. We sit back and take it because it is a quiet, easy suicide.
Our methods (small business) of paying quarterly or annually writing that check is more like shooting ourselves in the head. We dread it and fear any pain that might come with it. We feel it, they don't.
How do you fix that?
First you eliminate everything the federal government is doing that is unconstitutional. The constitution (including the bill of rights) is not document enumerating our individual rights. It is a document that LIMITS the rights of the federal government. It is a document that says "you can go this far and NO further".
IF the states took it upon themselves to DEMAND that the federal government remove itself from the prohibited areas of operation our federal government could operate on less than 3% like it did in the beginning.
Anyone could swallow a 3% tariff on new goods. Many of our states have increased 3% or more on sales tax in the past 15 years anyway.
That's how to fix this. We don't need some 9 9 9 or 6 6 6 plan or anything else that taxes our income before we've even had a chance to choose to spend or save it.
If automatic payroll deductions were eliminated and Americans were expected to pay equally of their own accord the way we are there would be a revolt like this country has never seen.
The end result would probably be an abolishment of the income tax and an amendment guaranteeing it's permanent extinction.
But the payroll extortion is quiet and bleeds the nation silently like a cut wrist. We sit back and take it because it is a quiet, easy suicide.
Our methods (small business) of paying quarterly or annually writing that check is more like shooting ourselves in the head. We dread it and fear any pain that might come with it. We feel it, they don't.
How do you fix that?
First you eliminate everything the federal government is doing that is unconstitutional. The constitution (including the bill of rights) is not document enumerating our individual rights. It is a document that LIMITS the rights of the federal government. It is a document that says "you can go this far and NO further".
IF the states took it upon themselves to DEMAND that the federal government remove itself from the prohibited areas of operation our federal government could operate on less than 3% like it did in the beginning.
Anyone could swallow a 3% tariff on new goods. Many of our states have increased 3% or more on sales tax in the past 15 years anyway.
That's how to fix this. We don't need some 9 9 9 or 6 6 6 plan or anything else that taxes our income before we've even had a chance to choose to spend or save it.
Scott Stone
New member
It does, but it still is a very regressive tax. Because it is a sales tax, the poor, who have to spend every dollar of their income to survive, are paying 9% of everything that they make. While those that are able to save some money, only pay 9% of what they spend. So, say you have the bottom tier of income earners, that make under $50k a year. They pay about $4500 of their income. If you have a rich guy, who makes $200k a year, he might need to spend $150k a year, and so his total tax burden under the sales tax portion is $13,500. If he had to pay 9% on everything, it would be $18,000. So it boils down to the more wealthy paying 6.75%. That just does not seem right to me. I would even be more in favor of it if an equal burden, say, 10% across the board was implemented. Unfortunately, that would make it more likely that people would find loopholes, etc. that wouldl decrease their tax burden.
BTW, I am not totally opposed to capital gains. I am opposed to capital gains for the guys like Warren Buffett, whose entire income is taxed at the capital gains rate, which is why even Buffett says he is not taxed correctly.
BTW, I am not totally opposed to capital gains. I am opposed to capital gains for the guys like Warren Buffett, whose entire income is taxed at the capital gains rate, which is why even Buffett says he is not taxed correctly.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
From Burton W. Folsum Jr:
America’s founders rejected the income tax entirely, but when they spoke of taxes they recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” reads the U.S. Constitution. And 80 years later, in the same spirit, the Fourteenth Amendment promised “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens.
In other words, the principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay—would have been appalling to the founders. They recognized that, in James Madison’s words, “the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group.
----
During the 1800s economic thinking in the United States usually conformed to the founders’ guiding principles of uniformity and equal protection. One exception was during the Civil War, when a progressive income tax was first enacted. Interestingly, the tax had a maximum rate of 10 percent, and it was repealed in 1872. As Representative Justin Morrill of Vermont observed, “in this country we neither create nor tolerate any distinction of rank, race, or color, and should not tolerate anything else than entire equality in our taxes.” MY NOTE: The supreme court ruled this was unconstitutional.
When Congress passed another income tax in 1894—one that only hit the top 2 percent of wealth holders—the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voters. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted, “will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”
America’s founders rejected the income tax entirely, but when they spoke of taxes they recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” reads the U.S. Constitution. And 80 years later, in the same spirit, the Fourteenth Amendment promised “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens.
In other words, the principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay—would have been appalling to the founders. They recognized that, in James Madison’s words, “the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group.
----
During the 1800s economic thinking in the United States usually conformed to the founders’ guiding principles of uniformity and equal protection. One exception was during the Civil War, when a progressive income tax was first enacted. Interestingly, the tax had a maximum rate of 10 percent, and it was repealed in 1872. As Representative Justin Morrill of Vermont observed, “in this country we neither create nor tolerate any distinction of rank, race, or color, and should not tolerate anything else than entire equality in our taxes.” MY NOTE: The supreme court ruled this was unconstitutional.
When Congress passed another income tax in 1894—one that only hit the top 2 percent of wealth holders—the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voters. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted, “will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”
bigchaz
Moderator
The problem is that the liberals want to assume what Americans do and don't spend. As usual they assume the poor are stupid, which if I was poor I don't know why I would vote for liberals...but beside the point, you can live on less than you make in a year. Its basic budgeting. The fact that a rich person spends less than he makes doesn't make the tax unfair, it makes the rich person smart. Probably how he got there in the first place. If a poor person spends all their money every year then they deserve to be taxed on it. If they just spent less than they made than their tax rate would go down as well. I earn less than 60,000 and save well over half that amount each year.
BlueBliss
New member
I think you're looking at this all wrong. The wealthy will pay 9% on earned income, and 9% on what they spend, then they will pay 9% on the interest they get from what they saved (and invested), the company they invested in will also pay 9%, then when the principle is returned and they (or their heir) finally choose to spend it they will be taxed at 9%. (wealth is useless until it's spent...)
A lower tax rate just means the money must change hands more times to give the gov the same rev. The lower the tax rate, the more money available to change hands...which, in turn leads to a quick recovery of rev to the gov.
I'm sure you've heard the term "don't let perfect get in the way of great", well with taxes it should be, "don't let 'fair' get in the way of right(or effective)"!
Buffet can pay his companies taxes, then lecture people on their taxes! Taxing Wall St. transactions will just lead to a Real Estate bubble, or bubble in some other investment.
I think 999 would be just fine as long is it has NO loop holes or other special privileges.