ADDED: I thought David Gregory really lost his cool early on, as he was questioning Cain about 9-9-9. If you watch the video, you can see he's agitated and grimacing in a way that really lacks the usual polished journalist quality. To excerpt the transcript bits that hint of this attitude:
The reality of the plan is that some people pay more, some people pay less.... You're saying [prices] actually go down?... This isn't about behavior, Mr. Cain, this is about whether you pay--if you don't pay taxes now, and you now have income tax and a sales tax, you pay more in taxes.... Mr. Cain, we talked to independent analysts ourselves.... We're not just reading newspaper clips here... They tell us, they've looked at this, based on what's available of the plan, and it's incontrovertible.Gregory's experts are incontrovertible? What kind of a question is that? How does Cain deal with this barrage of disbelief from Gregory? He stands his ground and explains his program:
Some people will pay more, but most people would pay less is my argument.... Who will pay more? The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods....This discussion got me thinking about the positive side of switching to sales tax. With a progressive income tax, the political process sets different percentages for different income levels, so, for example, the majority can vote jack up the taxes on other people — "the rich" — and those other people can work on extracting various exemptions and credits and so forth in an elaborate, inscrutable government system. With a sales tax, you control what you pay through your shopping decisions. Every time you forgo a purchase or buy used goods — and isn't that good for the environment? — you pay no tax. And every time you choose smaller amounts or cheaper goods, you pay less tax. Now, you have various needs that you have to meet, but you have far more control, and you aren't at the mercy of the ever-ongoing machinations of the political process.
My point is: After the debate last week, I was thinking about the negative aspects of the sales tax, but as he was talking about it on "Meet the Press" today, I felt open-minded about the potential benefits. And that was while Gregory was going for the jugular.
MORE: Gregory asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement: "Do you empathize, as the president does, with the message of those Wall Street protesters?" Gregory invites him to express empathy, a concept Obama has actively promoted (which Gregory prompts us to recall). Cain homes in on the premise that there is a message and proceeds right to criticism of Obama:
What is their message? That's what's unclear. If that message is, "Let's punish the rich," I don't empathize with that message. They should be protesting the White House. The White House has basically enacted failed economic policies. The White House and the Democrats have spent $1 trillion that did not work. Now the president wants to pass another $450 billion. They have their frustrations directed at the wrong group. That's what I'm saying.Nice clarity and brevity and excellent sharp perception of the opportunity in the question asked.
AND: Gregory confronted him with an extreme statement he made back in February: "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country" and followed up with a pointed "You think liberals actually seek to do that, that that's their mission, to destroy the economy?"
Cain stood his ground: "It is their mission. Because they do not believe in a stronger America, in my opinion. Yes."
Gregory let it go at that and moved on to another one of Cain's presumably insufficiently thoughtful statements: "You've also said that stupid people are ruining America.... Who exactly are you talking about?"
MR. CAIN: People who are uninformed. People who will not look at an alternate idea. People who are so dug in with partisanship and partisan politics. Open-mindedness is what's going to save this country. The reason that my message is appealing is because it's simple and people can understand it. You know, a good idea transcends party politics...Somehow, the next question on Gregory's list was: "Is race a factor in this campaign?" Obviously, Cain's answer is going to be no. I'm more interested in why Gregory jumped from "stupid people" to race. Gregory next displays the new Newsweek cover, which calls Cain "the Anti-Obama," and starts to put together a question: "You've actually talked a bit about race, though, and you've created a contrast between yourself and your experience as an African-American, a term you don't like, by the way."
So suddenly the topic is the terminology of race: African-American or black American, which Cain prefers. Gregory asks why. Cain says:
Because my roots go back through slavery in this country. Yes, they came from Africa, but the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America. So I consider myself a black American.That's a very rich statement. Slavery is a heritage. But Gregory goes for the implicit distinction between Cain and Obama: "So you draw some distinction between yourself and your experiences as a black man in America and the experience of President Obama."
Cain says:
Absolutely. I came from very humble beginnings. My mother was a maid, my father was a barber and janitor and a chauffeur. We, we had to, we had to learn--do things the old-fashioned way. We had to work for it. I--my parents never saw themselves as a victim, so I didn't learn how to be a victim. I didn't have anything given to me. I had to work very hard in order to be able to go to school and work my way through school....Notice how simply and vividly he struck a chord — the classic black American experience — and made it resonate for anyone who works for living. There is a quality of nobility, that fits with the idea of heritage. Gregory is at a complete loss, I think, to do anything with this:
MR. GREGORY: You actually said President Obama's outside the mainstream. So you're making a different, more of a social cultural background distinction between you and the president.YET MORE: I liked the way, when asked to name his model for the ideal Supreme Court justice, he focused on Clarence Thomas:
MR. CAIN: More experiential. Look at his experiences vs. my experiences. It was more at a contrast of experiential differences than anything else.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about foreign policy...
I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, despite all of the attacks that he gets from the left, he basically rules and makes his decisions, in my opinion, based upon the Constitution and solid legal thinking. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my models.Gregory declines to follow up about what the unfairness was. He moves on to the topic of Cain's wife Gloria, who's been invisible so far. He gave a lovely explanation:
MR. GREGORY: Has he been targeted unfairly, you think?
MR. CAIN: I think he has been targeted unfairly.
My wife and I, we have a family life, and she is maintaining the calmness and the tranquility of that family life so, when I do get a day off of the campaign trail, I can go home and enjoy my family.She's his wife, not America's wife. Home is a refuge. That's a good traditionalist message.
258 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 258 of 258You mean the Extreme Value Theorem? Which is what the "Laffer curve" is if applied to anything but taxes. No, it hasn't been refuted. You'll find it in the table of contents of every calculus textbook.
No dumbass ,its about taxation and govt.receipts --yr spammed in calc 101 notes from Casa Grande (which you failed) doesn't apply whatsover anti-christ liar
"Republicans are working people."
They're self-hating working people.
J: no ,little man, it's "laugher" intentionally. And you still haven't got yr litte informal fallacies Now yr gonna shut yr yokel mouth Bellami, the blowhard-satanist and flunky. Comprendes, hijo de puta Edu-nixon--buh bye pedo satanist,along with irrational tard queerster. The A-house wicca log cabin GOT THAT A-HOUSE SATANISTS? PARTY's OVER
The ugly face of Schizophrenia.
“Because my roots go back through slavery in this country. Yes, they came from Africa, but the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America. So I consider myself a black American.”
Unlike you-know-who.
Cain implies a fact about the President that the left has steadfastly refused to acknowledge: That he is not a representative of the rich (and tragic) traditions of black American history. That Gregory appeared somewhat incredulous of that seemingly obvious fact is baffling.
I still don’t see how Cain assembles a credible national campaign in the few months remaining before the first primaries. But today, on Meet the Press, he appeared thoughtful, plain spoken and surprisingly substantial. Don’t know where that ultimately might get him, but the reappearance of the race arbiters here suggests that he may have more staying power than many thought.
Cookie- you sound like Thomas Frank when he wrote "Whatsa Matter wit Kansas". Would you dare to call a black Republican a self-hater?
You condescend when you tell people how to think and vote. That is how longtime Dem pols act out. Examples are Biden, Obama, and the usual race hustlers.
You'd have better results if you tried using persuasion or facts or logical arguments.
Receipts increase with higher taxes--ie, there is more money (for deficit, DoD, programs,etc).
Is that a linear increase in receipts?
If so, complete confiscation of all private income (100% tax rate) will produce the highest receipts of all.
Well, we knew J couldn't do math.
somebody said:
"...and being a CEO he is used to being a dictator of sorts."
This may be a popular sentiment but it's pretty misguided. CEOs have boards and stockholders to answer to, and if they alienate their executive staffs they'll be left out to dry. I suspect that even if Cain was a tough boss he worked hard to build trust and allegiances. Dictators get overthrown. Cain would know that.
The closest we've come to dictatorship around here was 2008 when Dems had complete control of the executive and legislative branches. They had absolutely no one to answer to; at least they didn't think they did until the 2010 elections.
Sock pup. making shit up again--in fact Reagan 's deficit was the greatest in US history. Nice try idiot--the EVT only applies in a hypothetical case--O and 100%. Which is to say,it does't apply at all in actual historical situations (which has been proven over and over--even Krugman has material on it,dumbass. OR try the wiki,once you get your GED)
We knew Sorepaw couldn't do math--and applies the extreme situation to reality--like the idiot AZ hick he is. FAIL Econ. It's a curve--not about the extreme values, dreck.
And the historical record nearly always (ie, the anomalies are ..negligible--look that up, stupid ass) shows that the higher receipts correlate with higher taxes. But that's a bit too much for a cheap klansman like you.
"Employment was thriving in the 80’s and 90’s when tax rates and receipts were larger."
So what else was different?
Or do you agree that businesses are sitting on their reserves because they are greedy assholes.
And if you count the cost of taxes, you should also count the total cost of regulatory compliance.
Unless you agree with the junior Dem pol from Minnesota that claimed more federal regulations is a good way to get more private sector job growth.
Workers only pay half of the 15% payroll tax, or 7.65%. So it's a tax hike.
This output is further proof of the incredibly slipshod programming provided to the unit known as Garage.
The entire 15.3% effectively comes out of workers' wages now.
And ending the payroll tax would also end Social Seurity and Medicare, which when people find this out, Cain's stupid plan will meet the death it deserves.
Only if Social Security and Medicare must be funded by a payroll tax.
But the unit's programming includes no lines of code to cover other possibilities.
Funding them out of general revenues would end the mystification and razzle-dazzle that still surround these programs.
WingnutMath-LafferCurve
From yr old pals at d-Kos--you know, Bubba, when your bipolar disorder's swinging to the left.
Laffer is widely known for lazy thinking, and his stint in Washington displayed the full depth and depravity of his bumbling, simplistic approach to the complex problems for which his PhD in economics should have prepared him. ..... He chose these indicators based upon interesting criteria having, basically, to do with the enhanced regard Laffer has for the Galtian figures who run Wall Street. Needless to say, his calulations were very, very wrong, and he was mocked and ridiculed and left government in disgrace. .
Yr neo-con heroes Cheney and Rumsfeld bought the Laugher quack BS. Nuff said
.
"It was nice that you were more open-minded about Cain."
I was open-minded. My open mind adjudged him to have done badly in the debate.
J, Thx for the link. Amazing piece of writing, that manages to fuck up the simple task of making fun of Arthur Laffer.
The quote you pulled is about the "Laffer-Ranson" model of nominal income determination, not the "Laffer curve." The L-R model was indeed a bad predictor. The Laffer curve is not invalid, despite the bullshit argument of that Kos guy, because it's simply what GHanna said.
The argument that you actually seem to have in mind is much better than the one you linked to; too bad you won't take the time to make your point clear.
You're right that it would be surprising to find ourselves in the "wrong" region of the L.C., though it's a logical possibility. You're wrong to think this applies to all taxes in all situations. Specifically, reducing payroll taxes will increase tax revenues collected from previously unemployed people. So for those people, it's obvious that their taxes paid will rise as a consequence of their higher earnings, because they started at zero earnings. It's equally obvious that they're better off as a result, despite paying a higher "share" of taxes.
You'd like that Tyrone perp. Dissent really bothers mafiosi (or wannabe in yr case---bendapen gang!)
The server admin thinks differently as well. He's got yr 30+ bogus--names. As does google and AA.
Now, let's hear more of your BS regarding the laugher curve (which you still don't understand). Heh heh. Byro Rumsfeld in the house.
No,ChipS--it's an empirical issue anyway. The L-C model is mostly MBA BS (ie, there's never been 0or 100% taxation). And you compare the receipts,--and they match the higher rates probably 95% of the time, in line with the ordinary hunch .
We knew Sorepaw couldn't do math--and applies the extreme situation to reality--like the idiot AZ hick he is. FAIL Econ. It's a curve--not about the extreme values, dreck.
No, J, you're the one who can't do math.
And where did you get the idea that I'm from Arizona?
I've never lived or worked in Arizona.
in fact Reagan 's deficit was the greatest in US history.
Really, J?
Bigger than Dubya's?
Bigger than Obama's?
You're as incompetent at history as you are at mathematics.
J--No argument that the actual response of revenue to tax rates is an empirical question.
But it's also the case that the increase in revenues due to higher tax rates falls as rates get higher. So raising the top marginal rate gets you less and less of a revenue boost, and you probably get zero additional revenue at top rates beyond 50%.
The other problem is that before tax rates get close to their revenue-maximizing rates, they begin to introduce significant inefficiencies into the economy. So it's generally stupid to get very close to revenue-maximizing rates.
"Republicans are working people."
They're self-hating working people.
Cook, this is a bit puzzling.
Since you often argue that, policy-wise, Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans, it must follow that Democrats (at least those who are working people) are also self-hating working people.
In which case, there can't be a whole lot of working people in the US of A who aren't self-hating.
And that those few who don't hate themselves belong to another political tendency, neither Democratic nor Republican.
Which is one is that?
Althouse, I admire your commitment to free speech and more of it. The compulsion to ban J must be strong. As others have pointed out, he adds nothing of value, offends relentlessly, and is usually incoherent.
Maybe you need to throw the few remaining liberals here some red meat. Try something about Palin being stupid.
I think someone about 100 comments ago had a good idea: I don't think it's worthwhile to respond to J's nonsense anymore. We've given him a chance, he's just dragging threads into the gutter.
When it comes to J, it's important to remember where he's coming from:
How to argue and win.
Keep up a stream of illogical thinking. Employ fallacies, prejudices, and if you find that something doesn't work, go heavy on emotionalism and inappropriate analogies. Be completely irrational and avoid facing the truth. The method so frustrates you opponent that, though he may be completely right, you appear to have won.
Bill Graham
Of course, J fails, as he does in all his endeavors.
I think someone about 100 comments ago had a good idea: I don't think it's worthwhile to respond to J's nonsense anymore. We've given him a chance, he's just dragging threads into the gutter.
Yup.
Jonathan Tobin over at Commentary Mag is a bit upset with Cain's lack of knowledge about foreign affairs - especially since he has admitted that he does not know what neoconservatism is and what the Palestinean "right of return" gambit is about. He also seems disinclined to investigate these concepts dispite frequent questions from the drive-bys.
Chip, we tried to explain these very basic concepts of algebra (high school algebra, not group theory) to J about 3 months ago. You're wasting your time. Mere proof does not convince him. Notions like continuous functions, maxima and minima are just Wicca perp LDS nonsense.
There is a huge confidence deficit in America. Your anecdotes are evidence of it.
This is so true and yet the Republican candidates refuse to disclose their birth certificates thus contributing to the atmosphere of uncertainty. Where is Donald Trump now?
There is a huge confidence deficit in America. Your anecdotes are evidence of it.
This is so true and yet the Republican candidates refuse to disclose their birth certificates thus contributing to the atmosphere of uncertainty. Where is Donald Trump now?
Just watched excerpts from Cain's interview. Impressive. And he was the same impressive guy I hear on Laura Ingraham and Michael Medved podcasts. Too many pols put on one face for their conservative supporters and a very different one for big media types. What you see is what you get with Cain.
With respect to the state plus fed combined high total tax, a couple of things. One, as Cain argued, the big reduction upstream will mean that companies will be able to (really, have to in the invisible hand sense) reduce prices. There will and adjustment period, but the total cost of goods will not actually rise by 9%. Two, transparancy is good. Automatic payroll deduction hides the house "rake" too much. Seeing that cost with every visit to the store will make us ALL a little more cognizant of spending. It won't all seem like other people's money.
I listened to the podcast of the show before reading any commentary, and I said to myself: Wow! He is good.
"Since you often argue that, policy-wise, Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans, it must follow that Democrats (at least those who are working people) are also self-hating working people."
Jeez, I make a quip, (although no less true for being a quip), and you want an exegesis of my thinking on the supposed paradox you've caught me in.
Hokay:
While, in practice, the Dems are less a separate party from the Republicans than merely one of the two faces of our one national party--the Republicrats, you could call it--they sell themselves as being distinct from the Republicans, and many democratic voters accept their party's branding efforts at face value. So, Democrats are self-deluded working people, to the extent they believe their party really intends to effect significant change.
Moreover, some Democratic voters probably see the negligible differences between the two parties but still feel they must make a distinction and vote for the lesser of two evils, however minimally "lesser" that lesser evil may be. (These voters may be even more self-deluded than those who buy the Democratic branding message whole-heartedly.)
Just what I need--a 9% sales tax on my drugs and the services of my hookers. Or are they considered 'used' and no tax for their services. BTW--will the other oldest profession [lawyers] still have their 'services' exempt from the sales tax as it is now? Fairness and rationality should require all 'fucking' be either taxed or exempt.
Garage is a typical liberal who loves all black people but cant stand individual blacks, especially those who dont conform to what he believes is the right way for blacks to think or act Very typical of liberal racists.
J is a racist. He hates Jews, too.
Garage is not a racist. If you think he's racist, cite what he said. I've never read anything from him that was racist.
A liberal has a right to attack Cain on economic grounds.
It might be funsies to play the race card on libs but we ought to resist it.
Come on people. The 9-9-9 plan is one of the most simplistic, dumb ideas that has ever been proposed by a presidential candidate. It's a simple idea that people can understand, yes, but the consequences of it and its actual effect are a lot more complicated to understand.
Obviously it will raise the burden on the poor, with the regressive sales tax - which gets tacked on to any sales tax that exists at the state level.
In states such as Washington, you'd end up with a combined sales tax that approaches the VAT in some European countries.
47% of people don't pay income tax today, but with Cain's plan they would pay 9% income tax.
What Cain has been saying when people bring these things up, is adding new exceptions to this simple plan. Which... ironically makes it start becoming more like the tax code you already have.
Some times simple ideas are simple because they have failed to take reality into account.
"47% of people don't pay income tax today, but with Cain's plan they would pay 9% income tax."
But they do pay taxes, those 47%. If they have a job at all, they have a portion of it taken from them in taxes. It's just not *called* an income tax, because it comes out of their checks before they see them. Plus there are other taxes that their employers pay.
The unemployed, and anyone else, will certainly pay more taxes when they buy things. But Cain has a reasonable explanation that the cost of goods before taxes is likely to go down when the invisible taxes that are rolled into those consumer prices are removed, so the added tax may not increase the end cost.
It's simple, true, but not simplistic.
It may or may not work the way Cain says, but I'd rather have an actual discussion of that than have to listen to yet another person say, "That's stooopid!" as if that was so self-evident that nothing more need be said.
I love to hear the liberals pontificate ~ especially late at night. By reading them over and over and over, my mind goes into an altered state of association and wearies from dodging the facts; skipping the truth, jumping to conclusions, running from the lessons of history and watching our fore-fathers rolling over in their grave. Good night.
What Gregory implicity made himself and every other leftard aware of is that 999 is somehow unfair to those currently untaxed. Especially in the face of what he leftards have been saying about how they want more taxes. Irony? No, Gregory and the left basically lift their skirts on this one. Am I shocked? Nope because in typical fashion there is nothing there anyway.
Our host said:
Shoppers will see a shocking new sales tax percentage.
The shocking thing is that that tax is there now, you just can't see it. Cain is proposing to make the cost of our government more visible to the vast populace.
Ann, I suggest we could take this idea of transparency further: make everyone a contractor and repeal withholding. Everybody, pretend that they don't withhold your taxes and that you will have to physically write a check every three months for your social security and income taxes. Compute the size of what that check will be, and then think about how having to actually cut that check will affect your view of the government. The act of you having to actually having to transfer money that's in your possession to the government is far more enraging than watching it painlessly disappear before you've ever seen it (which is why you need to do that with 401(k) money).
I've often said that the best way to foment a revolution in the US is to eliminate withholding and make taxes due November 1. If people had to sit down and write that one monstrous check right before they went to the voting booth we'd never have the government we do today.
George said: In states such as Washington, you'd end up with a combined sales tax that approaches the VAT in some European countries.
And the reason you oppose making that visible is what exactly? Because it would showcase the high levels of money that the government is already siphoning out of the system, especially in states like Washington? If Cain is right, then the Federal burden would be neutral and all his proposal would do is make the real taxation rate more visible.
Humans are remarkable creatures. They react, most of the time, in rational ways to external price signals.
For example, I never understood the attitudes of Europeans towards their vacations until I brought the subject up with a coworker from Austria one day. He said he'd turn down a raise for more paid vacation anytime. His marginal tax rate was close to 80% so he'd lose that much of the raise, but the government wouldn't take 80% of his vacation.
This fits in 'somewhere'. MLK's memorial was dedicated today. This most famous and well regarded BLACK-American was murdered in Memphis because he was leading the BLACK city employee garbage workers in a strike against the WHITE public employees UNION. We all know how racist UNIONS are and the most racist are the 'public' employees--the WHITE Memphis garbage [garage] workers who would not let BLACKS into 'their' UNION. Kinda/sorta the difference between elite 'African-Americans, born with a university degree in their mouths and BLACK-Americans who actually worked their way up out of bondage. Heck--BOZO's parentage on both his mother and father's side were slave traders.
We've seen what our first African-American president is, now it's time to elect our first BLACK-American president. He's no god, no 'hope' from him but I will guarntee you we will have CHANGE.
Neoconservative is dog whistle code for a liberal Jew who has gone conservative. A good chunk of those who hate neoconservatives don't like them because they are Jews.
Gregory has always been and continues to be nothing but the worst kind of hack, and it speaks volumes that people take him at all seriously.
Of course, I could write the same about any number of others.
"Let's see what the government is taking and be vigilant."
A far better way to achieve that goal is with a flat tax the return for which is mailed in the last week in October.
I'd like to think that's how this shakes out.
Payroll tax is how Grandma gets her social security. Good luck Grandma. Don't worry though getting elected president bears no resemblance to getting things done as president. But if you're looking to replace an awful tax system with a horrible one then at least Herman Cain has a plan to do that.
I have a simple way to deal with "J."
Whenever I see a post from that thing I unfocus and move down to the next post.
I get enough "J" from reading the responses to "J."
vw: lardines; don't eat too many lardines, instead add them to your pie crust.
What hoyden said.
Gregory showed himself to be the bully but this time the "victim" stood his ground. Herman Cain is a serious man. I have doubts that 9-9-9 as articulated so far is the best tax reformation plan, but it's a start. I think it could be tweaked in a minimum of ways to make it less regressive. In spite of the outrage from progs, no one has pointed out that many taxes, those on alcohol, tobacco for example and all the big lotteries, are regressive to the core. Stop by a convneience store sometime and watch who buys cigarettes and Powerball tickets.
My Mother-in-law and I were watching it and she looks at me and says she really likes this guy. He's gives straight answers and doesn't back down.
It's pretty much what I thought too.
FWIW David Gregory is an idiot.
I wouldn't hold it against Cain for not knowing what a neoconservative is, if that's the case. Ask any neocon what the word means, and you'll get different answers. Are they the former-leftists-turned-conservative-anti-communists? Or are they the foreign policy interventionists? Social conservatives? Foreign policy idealists committed to encouraging democracy and human rights? Or realists-in-drag, out to funnel money to their oil interests? Or are they just Jews?
The word has become meaningless. I used to work with a lot of people who considered themselves neocons in DC, and none of them could agree on what constituted the core of neocon identity.
Gregory's experts are incontrovertible?
I think he talked to Michael Mann.
Gregory was completely lost by the concept that taxes on and tax compliance by businesses are passed along as higher prices to consumers and that reducing that tax burden will reduce prices in a competitive free market. Thus reducing prices by reducing the business tax burden will offset some or all of a sales tax.
Cain's most effective tactic in his interviews is the one virtually everyone else ignores. He responds to baiting attacks by revealing or explaining something positive about himself, instead of always trying to deflect the attack and say, 'someone else is worse'.
This is the way grownups are supposed to behave. Unheard of in this day and age. I will certainly be taking a closer look at this guy as a candidate (or running mate if that's what he turns out to be).
Aren't some people at the lowest end paying way over 9% in payroll taxes? It seems to me the lowest paid people will get a tax break.
No. The combined medicare and Social Security tax is 7.65% (actually currently it is 5.65% because of the tax holiday). So if a flat 9% tax on all earnings is instituted, that is higher. Also, many people at lower incomes are eligible for the EITC, which means they are actually paying a negative income tax, effectively offsetting some of their payroll tax liability.
As for your ridiculous assertion that a sales tax is fair. If you have income that is discretionary (say you are a law school professor), you can choose to spend less. However, if you are at the bottom of the income ladder, most or all of your income goes to putting food on the table, gas in the car and clothing your kids. You have very little choice as to how much you spend, since it is almost all spent on necessities. That is why a sales tax is a much bigger deal to less well off people.
And if the taxes will replace medicare and SS, how the hell are those two programs going to be funded?
It's amazing to me how many people do not understand the concept of embedded tax. Cain's point is that there is already a 35% corporate tax (personal tax if small business) levied at every step in the production and sales process - this tax is already passed along to the consumer in the form of a percentage of the final price. If you reduce that corporate tax rate to 9%, plus eliminate the 15.3% SS/Medicare/SE tax burden, the price of goods and services will fall and competition will ensure those prices remain lower. That means the state or local sales tax, if there is one, will be less because it is paid on a lower cost basis. Plus, everyone who works for someone else and draws a salary already pays 8.1% in payroll taxes for SS/Medicare - what he's proposing in the 9% sales tax is 9/10 of 1% higher, but because the prices of goods and services will fall, the purchaser actually pays less. If folks are worried that the poor are going to pay more in sales or income tax, then give them a welfare payment to offset the cost of the tax increase - that's essentially what's happening now.
The combined medicare and Social Security tax is 7.65%
I realize it's a chore to actually read the thread you're commenting in, but you can find out why you're completely wrong if you want to.
Or, if you don't trust wingnut commenters, you can always consult any Principles of Economics textbook in existence. That might lead to dangerous levels of cognitive dissonance, though.
WTFingFityF??? David Gregory thinks the Feds can dictate state taxing policy? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Tax rates are down. Total 2010 tax revenue (as a percent of GDP) is lower now than at any point since 1950 according to the Heritage Foundation. The notion that high taxes are killing growth does not square with recent history. Employment was thriving in the 80’s and 90’s when tax rates and receipts were larger.
Back then, employers didn't have the level of uncertainty about the future actions of their government that they do today.
Since early 2007, the threat that our leaders will treat them (even more) as cash cows and social-services surrogates in the service of a Progressive state has hung over them like the sword of Damocles.
If they hire someone today, they do not know how much it is going to cost to keep them employed in the future ... or how much demand for their products/services will be suppressed by the tax/mandate burdens imposed in the name of "the greater good".
It is the THREAT of higher taxes, and more mandates, coming from the redistributionist rhetoric of Progressives, that is compelling business to exercise caution today.
Post a Comment