It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Herman Cain's 999 plan...what happened to the fair tax!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
May be a little old news but apparantly Herman Cain has a new economic plan. 9% National Sales Tax, 9% Personal Income tax and 9% Corporate Tax. What is that crazy stuff. No way will I vote to give the special interest loving congress both a sales tax and an income Tax! Too much room for back door increases, special interest breaks and dirty dealings on the income tax.




posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
The globalists have always introduced new taxes that appear innocent and sincere at first, only to be expanded into a behemoth of debt.

So, same plan, same tactics, same motive. Different face.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
After looking at what he is proposing, would you prefer the system that we have now, where people are taxed, with a tax code that is so confusing, no one really can understand it, or that allows for corporations, such as GE to get away with paying 0 in taxes?

Simple tax code, for every dollar you make, you pay 9 cents in taxes, for every dollar you spend, 9 cents is being taxed, and the corporations that are making money, well they get to pay 9 cents on every dollar, right across the board. That means that it would all be equal across the board, no one would be getting any tax breaks or able to find loop holes in the system.

It is a fair tax code, and a flat tax, that way it would not go up every year if your pay does not go up, and it draws from all of the public, not just a few. It relieves the burden off of the middle and lower income class, and makes it more on the upper earners.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
After looking at what he is proposing, would you prefer the system that we have now, where people are taxed, with a tax code that is so confusing, no one really can understand it, or that allows for corporations, such as GE to get away with paying 0 in taxes?


You are obviously ignorant of history, the tax system, and how new taxes are proposed - expanded - and abused.

A smart man would check out a link like this :

en.wikipedia.org...

That man would also see that there is no need for Herman's plan because this plan was taxing people at a maximum rate of 15% for corporations. The people paid less than 10%.

History is fun isn't it?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 

Yet, the tax codes have changed since 1916, to the point where large global corps. are able to use loopholes not to pay taxes in the US and making millions if not billions?

And what of all of the people who do not pay taxes, or the continued pushing to tax more of the rich that pay the greatest of the tax burdens?

What he is stating is that the current tax codes and laws are not working, when companies like GE can get away, legally with paying 0 in taxes, and the burden lies on the middle class to try to pay, and the top earners who are asking to pay more would.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 

What he is stating is that the current tax codes and laws are not working, when companies like GE can get away, legally with paying 0 in taxes, and the burden lies on the middle class to try to pay, and the top earners who are asking to pay more would.


What I was saying is that there is no need to put the idea of fair taxes on the back of one man; that to do this is such a ridiculous and arbitrary waste of time it is screaming in your face and you're too ignorant to see it.

I just said it nicer last time.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I don't think there are many that would disagree with the fact that our tax code in its current form is ridiculus to say the least. That being said, we cannot possibly trust those in Washington with both a sales tax and an income tax. While Mr. Cain's plan proposes to institute a sales tax in conjunction with the income tax. The plan would then work toward completely eliminating the income tax, ss tax etc and replacing it with the Fair Tax at some future time. It is the period of time in which both the Sales Tax and Income Tax are levied simultaniously. History has shown us that once an income stream has been established, it is difficult to wrest it from the grasp of our legislators. I think we would end up stuck with both and at increasing levels over time.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pandora0629
I don't think there are many that would disagree with the fact that our tax code in its current form is ridiculus to say the least. That being said, we cannot possibly trust those in Washington with both a sales tax and an income tax. While Mr. Cain's plan proposes to institute a sales tax in conjunction with the income tax. The plan would then work toward completely eliminating the income tax, ss tax etc and replacing it with the Fair Tax at some future time. It is the period of time in which both the Sales Tax and Income Tax are levied simultaniously. History has shown us that once an income stream has been established, it is difficult to wrest it from the grasp of our legislators. I think we would end up stuck with both and at increasing levels over time.


The only people that would disagree are those completely, totally, and happily ignorant of US History pertaining to Taxes.

Which begs the question why you ever authored this thread if it took me that many replies to explain it, and now you come off like you already knew?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I have been a huge supporter of Cain until now... maybe it's time to back off a bit.

Firstly, I agree with the other posters about a combination of VAT and Income Tax... too much room for creeping increases and too much room for common people to be placed in an unsurvivable situation.

Secondly, I disagree with the VAT ('fair') tax completely. Why? Because it targets lower income. It would not apply to investments for those who could invest, meaning there is a built-in loophole... don't spend your money and you don't get taxed. But we want people to spend their money, if we expect to be able to pull out of this depression.

What we need is not more taxes, but less spending. DC spends many times what it needs to in order to accomplish a task, many times what private industry would spend. A good example is the operating budget for every bureaucratic office in existence:

If your office has a budget of, say, $100,000 a year and you manage to do your job with $80,000, the reward for saving the government $20,000 is that not only is the $20,000 taken away from you, but next year your budget is $75,000. If you go over-budget and spend $110,000, your punishment for going over budget is that your budget for the next year is $120,000. In other words, the less you spend the more you are punished, while the more you spend, the more you are rewarded.

Now multiply that by thousands upon thousands of individual government offices across the country.

A better plan would be to give the office personnel a bonus at the end of the year equal to half of the savings, and take back the other half. As an example, the office manager could get 20%, and the office personnel could have 30% split between them. 50% is left for the government. Then cap the reduction in the operating budget, to say, 3% per year. In my above example, the office manager who did his job with only $80,000 would get a $4000 personal bonus at the end of the year; the government would get $10,000 back (instead of 0 because no one is willing to stay under budget in our present process), the employees would split a bonus of $6,000, and next years budget would still be $97,000.

That is the kind of thinking I expect from a businessman, not some way to keep increasing taxes.

Oh, well, time to look at Newt and Ron again....

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that 999 upside down is 666.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Oh I read this plan is revenue neutral.

After reading a little about it I can only assume it will take some of the tax burden off the rich and put it on the rest of us.

As a blue collar worker I spend just about all my pay. So do many others. We would all be taxed more on are purchases.

High earners seldom spend all their pay so they will slide on the sales tax part.

A increases sales tax will also hurt the economy.

Oh yeah and the whole income tax thing. I see why it's the 666 bill.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
It does not matter what the plan is or would be. At the end of the day, no matter what the plan may be there is the risk that someone will find a way to abuse it.

The problem is the people not nipping things in the bud before it begins. We always get complacent and when that happens it allows for us to be taken advantage of if no one cares enough in the beginning.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Wait, people care about Herman Cain?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Wait, people care about Herman Cain?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
"Secondly, I disagree with the VAT ('fair') tax completely. Why? Because it targets lower income. It would not apply to investments for those who could invest, meaning there is a built-in loophole... don't spend your money and you don't get taxed. But we want people to spend their money, if we expect to be able to pull out of this depression." - TheRedneck

Below is from FairTax.org's "Official" website, and is the plan Herman Cain, until very recently, said he supported based upon a video clip of him on their site, taken from a debate where he extolled the virtues of H.R. 25, S 13

*Note: Every definition I've ever heard (you may know something I don't) of a VAT (value added tax) ala Bill Clinton & Paul Volker, is a tax ON TOP OF whatever current taxes we pay, i.e. Income, FICA, etc,,, as in the European model they both support. This is NOT however, what the FairTax.org movement advocates, in that they are in favor of the ABOLISHMENT of the IRS as we know it. Leaving just a handful of employees to monitor compliance of retail sales( POS) operations. A 22% tax on everthing sold in the U.S.

What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system. For more : www.fairtax.org...



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
* Correction ***23%*** not 22% National Consumption (Fair Tax) Tax Rate,

Also concerning the F/T being revenue "neutral". One big plus, among many others, is finally being able to collect something from the drug dealers and illegals that are paid in cash, that then go out and buy something, and get taxed on their purchases. This will generate additional revenues as well.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
After looking at what he is proposing, would you prefer the system that we have now, where people are taxed, with a tax code that is so confusing, no one really can understand it, or that allows for corporations, such as GE to get away with paying 0 in taxes?


You are obviously ignorant of history, the tax system, and how new taxes are proposed - expanded - and abused.

A smart man would check out a link like this :

en.wikipedia.org...

That man would also see that there is no need for Herman's plan because this plan was taxing people at a maximum rate of 15% for corporations. The people paid less than 10%.

History is fun isn't it?


A smart man would never get his fun history facts from Wikipedia.

This 9/9/9 plan is a gimmick. The Fair Tax, or at least a flat tax, is simple and equal for all.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by IndieA
I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that 999 upside down is 666.


Wow, that's freaky. I knew there was something about that bugged me but I didn't think through it.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
What we need is not more taxes, but less spending. DC spends many times what it needs to in order to accomplish a task, many times what private industry would spend. A good example is the operating budget for every bureaucratic office in existence:

If your office has a budget of, say, $100,000 a year and you manage to do your job with $80,000, the reward for saving the government $20,000 is that not only is the $20,000 taken away from you, but next year your budget is $75,000. If you go over-budget and spend $110,000, your punishment for going over budget is that your budget for the next year is $120,000. In other words, the less you spend the more you are punished, while the more you spend, the more you are rewarded.

Now multiply that by thousands upon thousands of individual government offices across the country.

A better plan would be to give the office personnel a bonus at the end of the year equal to half of the savings, and take back the other half. As an example, the office manager could get 20%, and the office personnel could have 30% split between them. 50% is left for the government. Then cap the reduction in the operating budget, to say, 3% per year. In my above example, the office manager who did his job with only $80,000 would get a $4000 personal bonus at the end of the year; the government would get $10,000 back (instead of 0 because no one is willing to stay under budget in our present process), the employees would split a bonus of $6,000, and next years budget would still be $97,000.


You should all read this. Then read it again. Then share it with your friends. Then share it with your local newspaper. Then share it with you congressman.

This is exactly what happens. The bureaucracy literally punishes you for saving money. The system was set up to figure out which entities within the governmnet were truly underfunded...but suddenly, it appears that every entity is underfunded every year, meaning more and more spending. You want to reign in government spending? Fix this problem, try it out for a year or two then we'll talk about whether or not to cut unemployment and social security.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Teslafan2

Therein lies the issue I have with the FairTax.org plan. If it were implemented as they want it to be, I wouldn't have a problem. But when was the last time you ever saw a plan implemented as designed? There are always concessions, compromises, last-minute riders, etc. This 'compromise' as proposed does not do away with all other Federal taxes; it adds a new layer of taxation to what already exists. Even if the result at time of implementation were lower taxes, it opens the door to much higher taxation by those in power. Once a tax system is implemented, it is very easy to expand it.

And it is very rare for it not to expand...

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join