Can't believe nobody is talking about this?? 　 　 　 This sounds pretty much like another tax sham, taking the eye off of the corporate owned government that is destroying this nation. 　 　 9% on corporate profits?? Why would the worlds largest corporations want to start paying pay taxes? The largest most preferentially treated already have the best government corporate money can buy that provides them with the most creative built in loopholes, tax breaks and tax credits, as well as the off shore banking system that allows them to pay 0% on the taxes on the profits they claim (wink, wink ), while they pocket the taxes their consumers pay for them but never seem to receive any benefit from, and while scamming everybody in the process some of them even get more money back from their government even after they pay nothing. How can you improve on the current CORPORATE WELFARE SYSTEM THAT EXISTS FOR THE MOST POWERFUL CORPORATE ENTITIES ON THE PLANET?? Honestly, HOW??? 　 　 　 9% on personal income. Now this sounds like that tithing he was referring too, and it is based on income, but that is a tricky word since income is based on a job/salary/wages, etc... Does this mean that the uber rich who do not have a job per say, will have to start paying an income tax based on 100% of their total accumulated wealth like the poor/working class will be forced too? I dont think this simple plan is intellectually as honest as it appears. In fact it sounds like another political scam, that will never be implemented in the first place. 　 9% national sales tax? So is that on top of the 8.5% or more state sales tax already in place that most states impose? So every time you buy something you will still pay the 35% corporate tax even though it doesnt exist any more, and you will give the feds another 9% of your income to the feds for every dollar you spend. Now this may sound suspicious at this point but isnt that over 50% taxation on every dollar you spend??? Am I missing something here, and if not where is the benefit to the average American or the average American household for that matter, of this obviously ludicrous idea?? Oh wait, they are saying that the average American will only feel the crunch of an additional 1% with this new tax, since they will be eliminating the employee federal tax. So the 8% or so you pay for Social Security, and medi-whatever, with the assumption you will get some of that back sometime in the future, will no longer be taken from your paycheck, but it will be replaced by a new tax, that doesnt even make the organized criminal promise with their fingers crossed behind their backs that at a later date you will get some of that investment back. Now they are just going to take it from you. So much for making SS privatized, or allowing you to have more of your money the government shouldnt be taking in the first place nonsense the republican party keeps talking about. 　 Well how am I doing so far? 　 The biggest obstacle I see standing in the way of this, what appears to be another shallow campaign promise at a dishonest attempt for tax reform, is the rich/elites. The current tax system is a product invented by, designed for, and by the rich/elites. Is this just a ploy to coax we the people into believing that we can actually make a change, if we just stick together, put out faith in one of the same political parties that caused most of our problems, and allow another corporate owned politician to assume the most powerful position on the planet? 　 　 Hmmm, where have I heard that before?
I wonder how much Cain's scheme would bring in compared to our present system. Has there ever been a tax plan presented by a Republican that doesn't lower taxes on the top and make them up on the bottom?
That is the only way to keep spending high and taxes lower for the two parties system's real bosses. All federal taxes are the product of lowering taxes on the rich. Neither party is responsible acting when it comes to spending though. They just spend the money on different things, but eventually it all goes in the same pockets, one way or another. And if anybody thinks republicans are the party of smaller government, they haven't been paying attention for the last 30-40 years. At all.
Yeah, the myth of the two party system. How much difference can there be between the two parties as long as they both go the same deep pockets for their campaign funds? And why do ideologues ignore this fact? Deficit, terrorism, communism, all our boogy men are a small threat compared to the threat that money in elections presents. No one seems to notice.
according to Cain, the replaces all other federal income from taxes, income and payroll, and provides the same revenue. My concern, as I stated in the other post on this subject, is the 9% sales tax acts like a tarrif to imports.
Thats because the watch dogs (the media) are being bought off by the same special interests, corporations, and unions. Regulators are just as "influenced" as politicians, because they actually have more horsepower.
If that is the case, and I believe it is, then will the Democrats raise taxes on the rich? I don't think so. Then why the vitrolic talking points? Simple, to keep the left and right at each others throats, so we will be too busy fighting to notice we are being scammed....
Almost. The media is owned by the corporations. It's one of them. But why unions? The media is hostile to unions. They are not in a position to buy off very many media outlets.
The media is just one big corporate owned propaganda machine that supports the corporate owned government. Unions are the support team (money people) for the party that is for the poor. The poor certainly can't support them. 　 　 Why do you think the USSC identified corporations as people, rather than making unions stop interfering with elections with ridiculously high donations to their favorite political party? Cuz the country club crowd is getting tighter with their money these days and now the corporate entities that already own the politicians can keep the propaganda machine competitive. If the USSC wasn't bought and paid for they never would have defined corporations as people. That concept is so utterly insane, it's genius. 　 　 They keep the money rolling in to finance the two party scam and both sides can argue the point for decades. If that isn't genius I don't know what is?
that is why unions buy politicians with dollars and votes (other special interests only have dollars). Want a good example? Look at California's public employee unions stranglehold on politics.
I don't see public employee unions having very much influence in California politics. Certainly not a stranglehold. If you want to find political influence in California you'd have to look at Agribiz, oil, and the big utilities (PG&E and SoCalEdison). They don't often make a big splash in the papers like the Prison Guards union did when they were giving a pile of money to previous Republican governors but they run the state.
999 or 666, is does not matter. We should just blame Cain now for the economy and bankruptcy, from his extension of the Bush tax cuts, because nobody is getting anything done without getting their Congress. Obama got what he wanted from his party's Congress, Obamacare and the Bush tax cuts and the deficits that were created by expenses and cuts. When a factory worker (who has more than take home pay as net worth) gets curious and finds he is paying 4.75% of his net worth in taxes, he might wonder about others, and due to the disclosure of information during an election does the math. It is found that a multi-millionaire (Guy W. Millner) in a higher income tax bracket is paying around .75% of his net worth in taxes, another multi-millionaire (Bob Dole) around 2% and the lesser of them (Johnny Isakson) around 3%. And that is unfair. But, if you flatten the tax rate and recalculate it is called "fair," even though the secretary of the filthy rich pays a higher percentage of her net worth in taxes than her boss. Income tax penalizes invention more than a property tax, and regressive property taxes harm the old and infirm. There simply is no way around the fact that "simple" is stupid, and those who are for a simple tax code probably are pandering to people too stupid to read. There is an injustice in a flat income tax and a simple tax code in the anti-Tea Party world. A really brilliant man making his million from selling the great invention of his lifetime pays full income tax, or a higher percentage of his net worth in taxes than a Sound and the Fury silver spooned inheritor who makes a million from the death of uncle Evrémonde. How can one forget the injustice done to ACTORS whose income is all at once and none for years? A man who makes a million every year from a perpetual motion income machine, while on vacation--inherent in the system since before Jesus attacked the slave that buried the money (of vampire usury that puts a National Treasure Sweepstakes blood bank in the attic and balks at a poverty level spouse being required to have the income to pay the payments, because a 50% front ratio DTI cannot stop a housing bubble Greenspan said was not there)--pays the same amount as the inventor. Making income tax flatter, to fix that injustice against the inventor just creates a more powerful perpetual motion income machine for the wealthy. Cain did not mean all income, he has made it perfectly clear that Charles Darney will pay no income taxes whatsoever on his Income from the Evrémonde estate. Only the worker whose take home pay is the overwhelming majority of their net worth, will pay more taxes by percentage of net worth than the aristocracy. The flatter the income tax is, the more unfair it is, because income tax is inherently more unfair than a flat tax on net worth (all that one wants the government to protect from the barbarians wont to rape, pillage, and plunder), and both or all of Cain's plan is more unfair than indirect taxes like impost taxes, which the Ron Pods no longer like. Still the anti-Tea Party wants to tax tea, and stamps, and whiskey...when a Washington pays no taxes on the Whiskey he makes and drinks. The Tea Party believed in this: "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html "But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to exterpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principle sources of corruption at elections." (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Everyman's Library, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994, p, 221) The anti-Tea Party congregation working for the return of the Obamanation of Desolation, which will bring about a reign of terror upon their aristocracy, should really check out what that last one had to say about consumption or "fair taxes." ****** Frack the corporate tax, frack the flat income tax, frack the national sales taxes, and frack the anti-Tea Party of Satan.
ROTFL The Democrats have such a majority, that less than 10 Republicans are necessary for 2/3's vote to raise taxes, like 3 years ago. Agribiz, you mean where central CA turned from a productive farmland to a ghost town because the environmentalist blocked every attempt to get water? Do we even have any oil business to speak of in CA? They don't make a splash in the predominately left leaning media, because they have little influence.
Left leaning media??????????????? What left leaning media? Do you mean the corporate press? Do you mean the corporate owned TV networks? Maybe you mean the left wing media that covers labor from the viewpoint of management? Or the left wing media that refused to cover W's AWOL but called Clinton a draft dodger? Or the media that published Whitehouse handouts as news and refused to take a critical look at our run up to war in Iraq? That left leaning media?
Boy, you must be way left of center. Have you picked up a paper (LA Times, Mercury News, etc), listened to a radio, or watched local TV in CA?
Sure! I'm left of center. I'm an American working man. There is nothing on the center for those who work for wages. Maybe we can't have a discussion of media bias unless we define left, center, and right. Just like middle class. It used to mean doctors, lawyers, merchants and other professionals. Now it seems to mean anyone who is not dirt poor. But by any one's definition of left/right the mainstream media is not left; Wall to wall coverage of the deficit "crisis" with hardly a mention of very real revenue crisis. Extensive coverage of social program spending and silence on spending on unnecessary, eternal war. Vilification of union Police, teachers, firefighters, and government employees while largely ignoring highly paid (maybe over paid) administrators. I'm not saying that the coverage is completely one sided. I'm saying that it is heavily weighted on the side of government and business and it is in no way left biased.
Soooooo, you're for campaign finance reform and want to prevent the rich from influencing political campaigns, is that it? Oh, I forgot, you're being totally disingenuous again due to your freakish dislike of working Americans and fawning cowtowing to the wealthy.
Try this: Voter registration will no longer record party affiliation. This makes gerrymandering harder. Political contributions by registered voters are limited to $500 per politician that shows up on your ballot. No other contributions. None to "the party", no PACs, no politican advertising. Corporations, unions, non-profits, all non-individuals, having the legal rights of an individual by the Supreme Court, are treated as one individual, limited to $500 per politician, able to contribute only to the politicians on the ballot where the head quarters is located. No other contributions. None to "the party", no PACs, no politican advertising. Any sub-chapter, subdivisions, subsidiaries, franchise, etc. that reports to another "headquarters" is considered part of that corporation, union, non-profit, or whatever. Any time a job outside of government, is offered to a government employee, or employee family member. 1. The job must pay wages consistent with others in positions with similar responsibilities. 2. A review will be performed of that government employee, to verify no decision or influence is being rewarded. Government employee will no longer be excluded from laws considered criminal behavior in the private sector. For example, insider trading is no longer allowed by congress.
There is a news adage, when it bleeds it leads. We are $14T in debt, we are spending over $1T of borrowed money, the economy is in the tank. What else is there for the talking heads to talk about? Has either party done anything newsworthy? Why the bias against social spending? It is projected to increase, a lot, military spending to decrease. I don't know about your part of the world, but California pays state employees, most that are in the union, 50% more than the average Californian earns, charges then very little for healh coverage and retirement. Many retire at 90% of their best year (including OT) after 30 years - they work for 30, and draw full pay for an additional 30. When California has to cut spending, they cut police, fire, teachers, and nurses first - and as you point out are largely silent about administrators, and government agencies that don't deal as directly with the public. CA is going broke, but the voters won't change parties (check the gerrymandering in this state!), and won't vote a tax increase.
A "9-9-9" solution is quite radical by typical US standards. That would mean an immediate 18 % inflation for half of the population (i.e. 9 % VAT and 9 % income tax that they haven't been paying for many years). I'd like to see the computer simulations indicating that the "revenues" would be the same. Or else, I would like to see what would be cut.
