I've been interested in reforming the tax code for a long time, and recently a lot interest has gone into Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Tax Code.
His proposal is a new 9 percent uniform income tax rate would eliminate all exemptions and deductions, including those for child care, school tuition, health savings accounts and interest on home mortgages. There would also be a 9 percent business tax and a national 9 percent federal sales tax — with no exemptions, even for food and medicine. This would be paid by consumers on top of state and local sales taxes.
The majority of people that benefit from this tax system are people who used to pay the capital gains tax from the sale of stocks and bonds, which would be eliminated. Most of the people who pay this tax are wealthy.
You'll wonder how that can be, when this will slash even the lowest income tax rates, but it is pretty simple. Many Americans depend heavily on deductions and his plan eliminates all exemptions and deductions.
Let me tell you a real life example of what this tax code would do for America. Take my wife and I, we both work between 40 and 50 hours per week and in addition we own a business on the side. Combined we make less than 6 figures, but well over $65,000. So we aren't rich or poor, just middle class.
Last year we paid ~18% of our income (including business income) to the government in taxes, but since we are married and have a mortgage, we get some big deductions that reduces our overall income tax rate to 11%. So, with the 9-9-9 plan we would pay 2% less on our income taxes but get slammed when prices would go up 9% on everything we buy!
In total, we would pay roughly ~$6,000 more per year to the federal government (assuming our spending and income stays constant).
The rich can easily afford to pay for child care, but the average America struggles to pay for it, and the deduction currently for it helps people afford it. Herman Cain eliminates this deduction.
Students (who's family doesn't pay their way) struggle to pay increasing tuition costs (and my wife and I are only a few years removed from school) and the deduction helps people afford it. Herman Cain eliminates this deduction.
For first time home buyers, the mortgage deduction (where you can deduct 100% of your interest) makes home affordable (it did for me we got back over $2,500 per year from it, which is better savings that Herman Cain provides by cutting our taxes). Herman Cain eliminates this deduction too.
A 9% sales taxes increase is a massive increase that obviously is blind to class. Food would cost more for the average America and for Bill Gates. But only one of them has to plan a budget around basic food shopping.
I've always thought a conservative president wouldn't stand for tax increase. But if you are thinking about voting for Herman Cain, think very carefully. You'll lose any deductions you get for child care, school tuition, health savings accounts and interest on home mortgages. And you'll pay 9% more for everything you buy to save a paltry amount on taxes. Do the math for your own individual situation.
Saving 2% on my taxes to pay 9% more for everything I buy is no savings. And all this so people who sell stocks and bonds don't have to pay taxes on them anymore? I can think of two better tax plans for the average America, the one proposed by Mitt Romney, and the one proposed by President Obama.
My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).
As a Canadian, I'm hoping you can explain something to me.
Here we pay both federal and provincial taxes. I assume it's the same in the states, where you would pay fed and state taxes. Would Cain's plan just cover the federal portion of tax you pay, or all tax? what is the current sales tax in the US?
9% seems really low to be the only income tax you pay.
Glad that I wasn't the only one who thought that this plan sounded crazy. Immediately on hearing 999 I thought to myself - oh good, balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it. Nothing against the rich, by all rights I will likely benefit from this plan, it's just wrong to ask people to live in virtual servitude while I enjoy a cushy lifestyle.
I'm in a slightly different place as the OP, even though my gf and I make just about the same income that you do we aren't married and I pull in a much larger portion of the income. The result is I get railed pretty badly when it comes to income taxes.
I pray that Herman Cain loses his head of steam. Perhaps people don't like haagen daz black walnut ice cream afterall?
On October 17 2011 00:08 Catch]22 wrote: Daytraders get rich, daytraders spend alot of money, daytraders pay alot of 9% spending taxes? the VAT in sweden is 25%, get over yourself, america
Way too completely generalize Americans. If you did basic research you would know that huge portion of this country wants tax cuts to expire.
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule?
People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work.
And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out.
How was that fair at all?
Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out.
We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair?
On October 17 2011 00:07 Fasterfood wrote: As a Canadian, I'm hoping you can explain something to me.
Here we pay both federal and provincial taxes. I assume it's the same in the states, where you would pay fed and state taxes. Would Cain's plan just cover the federal portion of tax you pay, or all tax? what is the current sales tax in the US?
9% seems really low to be the only income tax you pay.
Sales tax varies by state. I live in New Hampshire and pay no sales tax (but there is a huge property tax). There is no federal sales tax.
And as I said in the OP, Cain's system doesn't affect any state or local taxes.
You really need to contrast these kind of proposals with what we have currently. The 9-9-9 plan has plenty of flaws, of course. But every politician who doesn't have a reform proposal is basically advocating the following:
"My tax plan is to have a system of tax code that is tens of thousands of pages long and is so complicated that thousands of people will have to devote their entire education and career to studying it and figuring out how to work it. There will be countless provisions made for individual companies to create exceptions and special privileges, endless loopholes that can be exploited to reduce federal revenue, and hundreds of measures designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, based upon the fiat of politicians."
The system we have now is so stupid and nonsensical and inefficient and complicated that virtually any reform will be a step in the right direction. Don't get so caught up in the details of this specific plan, just recognize the NEED to establish a system that is simple, effective, and equitable.
On October 17 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: The system we have now is so stupid and nonsensical and inefficient and complicated that virtually any reform will be a step in the right direction. Don't get so caught up in the details of this specific plan, just recognize the NEED to establish a system that is simple, effective, and equitable.
Absolutely agree. And I noted that in my opening statement and my closing statement endorsing the much simpler Romney and Obama plans (as compared to the current tax code).
But most Americans should not pay more with a new simple system, while the rich pay far less, as it would be with Cain's Tax Code.
On October 17 2011 00:02 ScrubS wrote: My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).
But you have to appreciate that the government of the netherlands takes a more active role in the countries day to day running than the US government. Afaik, there is a strong sense of the right to choose and competition governing the market as opposed to government regulation. For instance, your 40% tax rate helps fund your public health system and operate any state owned enterprises you may have. Despite a move to change this in the US, healthcare is still heavily reliant on insurance to cover expenses and whatnot. So the money the US saves on taxes theoretically should be paid back in the form of things that are covered by the government.
Basically, the country has a different ethos towards these things than EU/other parts of the world. It's not really a matter of getting over yourself, rather the fact that one must appreciate the underlying differences between our cultures. Through doing that you will see why things like an 18% tax rate is accepted in the US and why any increases are frowned upon more so than in our countries.
I really can't understand why so many people seriously consider Herman Cain as a viable presidential candidate. His tax plan is ridiculous, he's openly bigoted to muslims, and he's completely ignorant when it comes to international relations.
I agree that our tax code is in desperate need of reform, but something as silly as the 9-9-9 plan is not an answer. A teacher of mine in elementary school made a point of telling us that complex problems seldom have simple solutions. I wish someone would tell Herman Cain that.
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
The real problem isn't taxes but rather government spending. How can we reduce the size of the government? Cut spending and grow the economy in a productive manner; which means giving small business and private sector tax incentives.
This plan does not outline the payroll tax which is satisfied by both the employer and employee. How will that take into effect?
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
You think Europeans don't have debt too?
This is the modern world man. You aren't supposed to actually pay off your debt. You are supposed to be as irresponsible as possible so that your situation becomes hopeless and eventually someone will be forced to bail you out and pay for your stupidity and selfishness. And afterwards when you have little or no income you can be rewarded even more for your stupidity and irresponsibility by having your home and your food and your health care and your education all paid for at the expense of those who are responsible and productive. Creating a moral utopia where we all feel warm and fuzzy for our good intentions is more important than a practical or functional system.
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
That's not my point. My point is that taxation is viewed fundamentally differently between EU/US so it's unfair to draw a comparison of taxes.
9% is a steal as far as I can see. In the Netherlands, taxes start at ~30% and goes up to ~50% depending on income. There are some ways to deduct from that (for example, mortgage payments can be subtracted from income) and additional charges (for medical care etc.). For modal incomes, that's at least about 3x more then 9%.
We already have 9% taxes on essentials (food etc), everything else is 19%. There are additional charges to stuff as tobacco and petrol, which combine to more then 100% (example, US gas prices are about $3.25/gallon, which is ~$1/litre. Here, we pay E1.7 for a litre, which is $2.33 Notice that assuming no taxes on gas in the US, we pay about 133% ADDITIONAL taxes compared to the US). Clearly, this is again WAY more than 9%.
Conclusion, this 9-9-9 thing seems like a steal to me Many people in the EU feel that the US citizens are sitting on a timebomb with the low taxes, high personal debts, low house prices and HUGE government debt (which US government increases again and again). Perhaps more taxes so government debt may be decreased is a good idea (or at least, reduced debt increment). Consider seeing more taxes as an investment in not having your country forfeit
Still, I'm considering getting work in the US after I finish my education, and I would greatly love to live in a country that's not about to implode on debt, so I wouldn't mind paying a lot higher taxes in the US if it'd help realize that, but I can see that people already living there don't like to see taxes increased. Even 20-20-20 would seem cheap for me as I come in form the EU
It's taxes. If we had taxed instead of borrowing money from China we could spend all we want and it would be fine. We would be in a semi-euro state.
The real problem now is that 40 cents on every dollar goes to pay our loans. If we hadn't got into this situation during the Reagan era, we could tax less.
It's taxes. If we had taxed instead of borrowing money from China we could spend all we want and it would be fine. We would be in a semi-euro state.
The real problem now is that 40 cents on every dollar goes to pay our loans. If we hadn't got into this situation during the Reagan era, we could tax less.
I'm curious where you heard this because I'm pretty sure it's more like 5-6 cents on every dollar
edit: just googled and realized what you mean is that we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend
It's not a flat 9% tax rate... it's 9% sales tax + 9% corporate tax + 9% individual flat tax.
That means the average dollar is taxed much more than 9%, and that doesn't even include state and local taxes.
The purpose of it is to broaden the tax base and to reduce the complexity. Our tax code is already over 60,000 pages long. Cutting down the complexity alone would probably result in millions of dollars saved.
People also need to realize that as long as the government is bringing in the same total revenue, people are being taxed the same rate. If you think that you, the consumer, are not ultimately paying for corporate taxes, you are naive. Just because it's not directly coming from your paycheck doesn't mean you aren't still paying the tax.
We need to fix the problem of half our country not paying federal income taxes. You cannot have half of a nation making financial decisions that they are exempt from. When people see directly how much they are paying and what they are getting for it the country will reverse these populist trends.
Conclusion, this 9-9-9 thing seems like a steal to me Many people in the EU feel that the US citizens are sitting on a timebomb with the low taxes, high personal debts, low house prices and HUGE government debt (which US government increases again and again). Perhaps more taxes so government debt may be decreased is a good idea (or at least, reduced debt increment). Consider seeing more taxes as an investment in not having your country forfeit
We do need some tax overhaul, but the 9-9-9 plan is not a deal, and the whole American system is quite the opposite of the European system. You pay high taxes and get a lot out of them (healthcare, free university, ect).
We pay lower taxes, but also have to pay for our own healthcare and higher education.
We had a point where the government was generating a surplus, where we had the first years of a balance budgets in decades. That point was the year 2000, when the government had a surplus under Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton balanced the budget when George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan could not, despite their "conservative" labels.
But then George W. Bush was then elected and sent the surplus back to the people in the form of $200 dollar checks and ramped up sending due to war, while cutting taxes ( who cuts taxes during a war?). So here we are again.
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
That's not my point. My point is that taxation is viewed fundamentally differently between EU/US so it's unfair to draw a comparison of taxes.
I didn't say that was your point. That was my own point. I was just pointing him/her to your point before I made my point.
I never want to say point that many times again. I'm not even sure it's a real word now.
On October 17 2011 00:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: You guys really aren't understanding the plan...
It's not a flat 9% tax rate... it's 9% sales tax + 9% corporate tax + 9% individual flat tax.
That means the average dollar is taxed much more than 9%, and that doesn't even include state and local taxes.
The purpose of it is to broaden the tax base and to reduce the complexity. Our tax code is already over 60,000 pages long. Cutting down the complexity alone would probably result in millions of dollars saved.
People also need to realize that as long as the government is bringing in the same total revenue, people are being taxed the same rate. If you think that you, the consumer, are not ultimately paying for corporate taxes, you are naive. Just because it's not directly coming from your paycheck doesn't mean you aren't still paying the tax.
We need to fix the problem of half our country not paying federal income taxes. You cannot have half of a nation making financial decisions that they are exempt from. When people see directly how much they are paying and what they are getting for it the country will reverse these populist trends.
People as in the whole society sure. But how the tax burden is divided among the individual who make up "people" is a totally different.
I would pay a lot more under Herman Cain, as would the average American who makes less than $100,000 (who depends on multiple exemptions and deductions in the current code). Edward Kleinbard, a professor of tax law at University of Southern California, has calculated that a family of four with an income of $50,000 could face a tax hike of more than $5,000.
People who make a lot of money on investments (like Herman Cain) would save a lot of money due to no capital games tax. Those people generally make over $100,000 a year.
Herman Cain himself would save a massive amount of money, since he makes millions a year on capital gains.
So sure, as a society we would have the same amount of cash generated. And the people generating that cash for the government would be the same people, but the how much each person pays would change, the rich pay less, the middle class and poor, more.
On October 17 2011 00:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: People also need to realize that as long as the government is bringing in the same total revenue, people are being taxed the same rate.
People as in the whole society sure. But how the tax burden is divided among the individual who make up "people" is a totally different.
I would pay a lot more under Herman Cain, as would the average American who makes less than 100,000 (who depends on multiple exemptions and deductions in the current code).
People who make a lot of money on investments (like Herman Cain) would save a lot of money due to no capital games tax.
Ultimately you are going to have to pay more. It's going to be a necessity to raise taxes on all americans to prevent a complete government default.
And people keep repeating this argument about capital gains... it's been going for months now. That's a simple problem to fix: If this was a 7-7-7-7 plan would you be satisfied? No, because you are still paying more and the rich still have more money than you, right?
Conclusion, this 9-9-9 thing seems like a steal to me Many people in the EU feel that the US citizens are sitting on a timebomb with the low taxes, high personal debts, low house prices and HUGE government debt (which US government increases again and again). Perhaps more taxes so government debt may be decreased is a good idea (or at least, reduced debt increment). Consider seeing more taxes as an investment in not having your country forfeit
We do need some tax overhaul, but the 9-9-9 plan is not a deal, and the whole American system is quite the opposite of the European system. You pay high taxes and get a lot out of them (healthcare, free university, ect).
We pay lower taxes, but also have to pay for our own healthcare and higher education.
We had a point where the government was generating a surplus, where we had the first years of a balance budgets in decades. That point was the year 2000, when the government had a surplus under Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton balanced the budget when George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan could not, despite their "conservative" labels.
But then George W. Bush was then elected and sent the surplus back to the people in the form of $200 dollar checks and ramped up sending due to war, while cutting taxes ( who cuts taxes during a war?). So here we are again.
Congress controls budgetary measures, the president does not. Bill Clinton did little to nothing to change the budget because he actually has no power at all to do anything, except propose a budget, which can be passed, tweaked, or rejected by Congress. Taxing and spending is a function of the congress so blaming any president is disingenuous.
On October 17 2011 00:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: People also need to realize that as long as the government is bringing in the same total revenue, people are being taxed the same rate.
People as in the whole society sure. But how the tax burden is divided among the individual who make up "people" is a totally different.
I would pay a lot more under Herman Cain, as would the average American who makes less than 100,000 (who depends on multiple exemptions and deductions in the current code).
People who make a lot of money on investments (like Herman Cain) would save a lot of money due to no capital games tax.
Ultimately you are going to have to pay more. It's going to be a necessity to raise taxes on all americans to prevent a complete government default.
And people keep repeating this argument about capital gains... it's been going for months now. That's a simple problem to fix: If this was a 7-7-7-7 plan would you be satisfied? No, because you are still paying more and the rich still have more money than you, right?
I have no problem paying more, but everyone should pay more. I shouldn't pay $6,000 more per year while Herman Cain saves millions.
We can all agree on that.
Or if you don't agree, are you arguing that everyone should pay the same percentage regardless? If so, please tell me.
On October 17 2011 01:07 Jacobine wrote: Congress controls budgetary measures, the president does not. Bill Clinton did little to nothing to change the budget because he actually has no power at all to do anything, except propose a budget, which can be passed, tweaked, or rejected by Congress. Taxing and spending is a function of the congress so blaming any president is disingenuous.
In theory, sure. But you simply don't understand how politics in this country works at all. Herman Cain proposing this plan, and other candidates proposing theirs show how much power the President alone has in these issues.
On October 17 2011 01:07 Jacobine wrote: Congress controls budgetary measures, the president does not. Bill Clinton did little to nothing to change the budget because he actually has no power at all to do anything, except propose a budget, which can be passed, tweaked, or rejected by Congress. Taxing and spending is a function of the congress so blaming any president is disingenuous.
In theory, sure. But you simply don't understand how politics in this country works at all. Herman Cain proposing this plan, and other candidates proposing theirs show how much power the President alone has in these issues.
Which congress would then have to pass. All it takes to get rid of this plan is to have a democratic majority in one house of the congress to stop this (see the last two years). Another example, President Obama has yet to have a single budget of his passed, congress has been the one spending the money. It's all nice that a candidate like Cain proposes a plan, but that does not matter at all under divided government, which is likely to continue even if a Republican is elected in 2012.
On October 17 2011 01:13 Jacobine wrote: Which congress would then have to pass. All it takes to get rid of this plan is to have a democratic majority in one house of the congress to stop this (see the last two years). Another example, President Obama has yet to have a single budget of his passed, congress has been the one spending the money. It's all nice that a candidate like Cain proposes a plan, but that does not matter at all under divided government, which is likely to continue even if a Republican is elected in 2012.
Do you really forget that just a few years ago Bush had a majority in Congress and the Senate and literally passed whatever he wanted completely ignoring Democrats? And then Obama had a majority in both too, and the Democrats in Congress wanted to return the favor, but Obama didn't let them and proposed compromise with Republicans only to have it blow up in his face?
Sure under a divided government what you say is true, but we've had more years under a unified government than divided recently, if you kept up with current events. You're arguing on a theoretical basis and ignoring current and recent events.
It is very ignorant, just like your former statement that the President has nothing to do with taxation. Well then why does every candidate propose a plan?
lulz, let's make the people who can afford it the least pay the most...
Income taxes are there for a reason, and whilst I do agree that tax revenues need a fairly steep increase, this is most certainly not the way to go about it.
Taxing day trading should definitely be implemented, as day trading is not good for the market stability, and wouldn't really exist if there weren't errors in the way the stock market functions.
Looking any any functioning goverment (such as Sweden), you will start to realize how stupid some people in the US government are...
I think the original post doesn't appear to represent all the details of the plan (e.g., payroll taxes are embedded in the 9% income tax so the OP isn't counting an incremental 6.2% SS/Medicare). It's obviously highly situational whether the 9-9-9 plan is better or worse for your individual situation.
I don't support the plan either but that's primarily due to the fact that it doesn't appear to be revenue neutral (or rather relies heavily on economic growth based on corporations translating tax savings as salary increases to workers / pricing cuts to consumers, which seems like a bad bet to make)
On October 17 2011 01:13 Jacobine wrote: Which congress would then have to pass. All it takes to get rid of this plan is to have a democratic majority in one house of the congress to stop this (see the last two years). Another example, President Obama has yet to have a single budget of his passed, congress has been the one spending the money. It's all nice that a candidate like Cain proposes a plan, but that does not matter at all under divided government, which is likely to continue even if a Republican is elected in 2012.
Do you really forget that just a few years ago Bush had a majority in Congress and the Senate and literally passed whatever he wanted completely ignoring Democrats? And then Obama had a majority in both too, and the Democrats in Congress wanted to return the favor, but Obama didn't let them and proposed compromise with Republicans only to have it blow up in his face?
Sure under a divided government, but we've had more years under a unified government than divided recently, if you kept up with current events. You're arguing on a theoretical basis and ignoring current and recent events. It is very ignorant.
Current events meaning the last 10 years?? Look at the 90s... only 2 years had unified government. Last decade 6 out 10 years unfiied Government. Last 20 years 8 out of 20 years unified government...... Also, what do you call the healthcare law passed by Obama??? It had less than a majority of public support, yet the democrats passed it through by using a BUDGETARY measure so it would pass the senate. President Obama has compromised very little, but instead had no political capital for his other major policy initiatives, and thus proposed to work with the republicans so that he could pander to the center. I'm stunned by your willingness do pay attention to 4 years of Obama and think that you can generalize about how the entire system works, plus insultingly talk down to someone making a point. You can continue to look at the political system in your way, however you are ignoring everything about government EXCEPT the presidential system. Go your way thinking you have won the debate, I'm now going to enjoy my day
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
This doesn't make any sense. Euro countries have debts of their own. We don't have to pay back our debt any time soon and we definitely don't have to pay back 14 trillion before we can add new government services.
How can he get elected in the current climate when the basis for his campaign is a policy designed to widen the gap between the rich and the poor?
Ooh and one really needs a world wide tax on day trading so the gambling we see now by definition becomes a losing game. Every transaction made should have tax on it so the madness stops.
One obviously needs a progressive tax system. But I think taxing income is old fashioned. One should really only tax consumption and pollution. We want people to get jobs and work and get income. We don't want to tax it more than we have to.
I think the US should get rid of their whole current system and have a progressive income tax that is designed to get a certain result on closing the income gap. Then when they have taxed their way out of debt and we are a decade into the future we can see what the role is going to be for the income tax in a modern society.
US needs to tax the rich, stop military spending and fix the health care system. This has been obvious long before the financial crisis. I don't understand why Americans are so confused about it. It seems that the moment you step into an area affected by American political discourse, up and down suddenly flip. Both the facts and the terminology.
Obama's health care system had no public support exactly because he tried to work and compromise with the republicans. There has been public support for public and universal health care for 60 years straight. That's basically as long as they have been polling. Of course Obama never supported that. And what he did initially propose was watered down even more into what it is now. Of course it has no public support.
Obama should have hammered down all these policies people voted him in office for. But no, he is a weak leader and a terrible president. Is he there for the people that voted him into office or is her there for the republican nutjobs who believe global warming isn't real? Fucking close guantanomo already
Obama is Bush heavy. He is everything Bush is but worse. Bush tortured? Obama assassinates. Bush bails out a few corporations, Obama bails them all out massively. Bush starts a war with a pitiful country called Iraq? Obama continues all the existing wars and starts new ones, including one in a highly unstable nuclear power that is thus pushed to collapse.
If you know what is good for you, impeach Obama. Otherwise next election you will have Bush heavy 2.0(Obama) and Obama heavy(some crazy republican like Cain).
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
This doesn't make any sense. Euro countries have debts of their own. We don't have to pay back our debt any time soon and we definitely don't have to pay back 14 trillion before we can add new government services.
I didn't say you did. I was saying if it wasn't for our 14T debt we could move into more of a euro-style economic system, which is clearly very efficient. But before we can dedicate ourselves to using a different economic system, and increasing taxes and spending by that much, we must first get this massive debt off our backs. In theory, yeah, we could totally do it. But most of the increased tax wouldn't be helping the taxpayers, it would be paying off the debt.
Which is something the US must do as soon as we can. We can't have a debt equivalent to ~10-15% of the world's total economy on our backs.
When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece.
On October 17 2011 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: No, because you are still paying more and the rich still have more money than you, right?
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece.
I'd like to head this argument off at the pass before someone brings it up.
The argument being that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income to the government. So the person who earns 10 bucks, should pay 1 dollar to the government, just as the person who makes 100,000 dollars should pay 10,000 to the government.
The problem with this argument is that it can violate the initial contract that was made by the haves and haves-nots when entering into society. So to explain this briefly is incredibly difficult, but I will attempt to do so.
Basically, before governments came to be, people were in the state of nature, whereby we all the natural right to kill. So you could have a ton of neat stuff, but I could kill you at any time and take all your stuff. And of course someone could then kill me and take my stuff.
So, essentially there was nothing stopping people from simply killing to get what they want, so property was not secure.
The result of this was that people banded together and established rules to protect property. First and foremost was that you could not longer kill people to obtain possessions, that became illegal. This obviously benefits the haves far more than the have-nots, since you've taken away the natural ability of humans to kill and steal, and this provides protection to those who have stuff, and takes away the right of the have-nots to get stuff through violence.
So now property is protected, and the haves become the rich. So we've created a system that gives something to haves, so in order for the have-nots (who are majority) to accept it, the haves need to give them a decent standard of living.
If the rich don't provided enough to those below them to keep them satisfied, they revolt, overthrow the rich and take all their stuff. So it is in the best interest of the rich to pay more to protect the system that allows them to be rich. And they should pay more, since the system obviously benefits them far more than the poor or the middle class. In other words, the people that benefit most from the system should be the ones who support it the most.
So to sum the argument up, the rich should pay more because they receive more from asset protection because have more assets to protect, while the poor and middle class receive less protection from the initial contract (that they would not kill and steal) because they have less assets to protect. Thus the rich should pay more taxes, because they benefit far more from the government system.
This isn't just a logical argument, this is a fact that has been proven many time. When you shift the burden on supporting the system to poor and middle class, they will overthrow the government. Remember of the fate or many kings...
The rich have it well in the US. They can afford to pay more taxes so the country doesn't collapse. Asking the poor and middle class to do so violates the initial contract, and could lead to a revolution, whether it be through elections (that skew taxes even more), or through violence.
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece.
The issue is, do we increase the taxes on every member of that 47%? Can the lower 15% even bear taxation without any form of government assistance and continue to live? The upper 25% of that 47% can surely pay a little more. But it's not as simple as breaking the country down into halves and saying "this half needs to pay more."
That works for both the poor half, and the wealthy (wealthier) half.
You can't look at the top 47% and say tax them more or tax them less. Nor can you do the same with the lower 47%.
Perhaps looking at it in 10% slices would be more helpful.
About 40% of my dad's income goes directly to taxes in the US (Federal+state) not including sales tax (over 9%). My sister's ioncome is taxed 30%, my cousin's is 30%. I'd really like to know how you are getting only 11%, that is amazing.
On October 17 2011 01:36 phant wrote: About 40% of my dad's income goes directly to taxes in the US (Federal+state) not including sales tax (over 9%). My sister's ioncome is taxed 30%, my cousin's is 30%. I'd really like to know how you are getting only 11%, that is amazing.
I thought states set their own state taxes, you living in a state that has higher taxation wuold make sense? Nevada has 0, if I'm not mistaken.
Wouldn't wanna end up in the socialist hellhole that is Sweden
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
This doesn't make any sense. Euro countries have debts of their own. We don't have to pay back our debt any time soon and we definitely don't have to pay back 14 trillion before we can add new government services.
I didn't say you did. I was saying if it wasn't for our 14T debt we could move into more of a euro-style economic system, which is clearly very efficient. But before we can dedicate ourselves to using a different economic system, and increasing taxes and spending by that much, we must first get this massive debt off our backs. In theory, yeah, we could totally do it. But most of the increased tax wouldn't be helping the taxpayers, it would be paying off the debt.
The massive debt we have to get off our backs isn't the 14T, it's the $1T a year budget deficit that we are adding to it. We don't have to get the $14T off our backs and if taxes were raised they wouldn't go towards paying off that debt. You're incorrectly assuming that politicians are responsible adults that care as much about repaying as our debt as they do by getting elected by handing out government services
The real problem is that we spend so much money on other countries that there's no way we can possibly make up our debt, regardless of huge tax increases. When you have bases in 130 countries and a perpetual war on terror, there's nothing you can really do about it besides significantly cut spending. After that, we can focus on increasing taxes and working on our debt from there.
Can someone explain how the poor cope with the high taxation of European countries? Some of the EU posters mention like 19% VAT or something like that. Is it due to all the assistance the govt can then give those poorer citizens that balances it? Not trolling I actually have no idea.
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
That's not my point. My point is that taxation is viewed fundamentally differently between EU/US so it's unfair to draw a comparison of taxes.
A different view on something does not make it unfair to draw comparisons, as you yourself have just done, it is however unfair to draw comparisons that assume that taxes are viewed the same way.
*This is all assuming that your data is valid, which I would have to disagree with.
The role of government in a good portion of the EU is a much more involved role with social services such as healthcare, public transportation, etc... The proportion of the taxes that people pay in the EU that go back to the people through services like these is much, much higher than that of US citizens.
Personally I view taxes for what they are, and so do people with brains anywhere around the world, you pay a portion of your income for the benefits the government provides, the people with higher income pay a higher percentage because they can afford to.
On October 17 2011 01:41 Penecks wrote: Can someone explain how the poor cope with the high taxation of European countries? Some of the EU posters mention like 19% VAT or something like that. Is it due to all the assistance the govt can then give those poorer citizens that balances it? ...
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
This doesn't make any sense. Euro countries have debts of their own. We don't have to pay back our debt any time soon and we definitely don't have to pay back 14 trillion before we can add new government services.
I didn't say you did. I was saying if it wasn't for our 14T debt we could move into more of a euro-style economic system, which is clearly very efficient. But before we can dedicate ourselves to using a different economic system, and increasing taxes and spending by that much, we must first get this massive debt off our backs. In theory, yeah, we could totally do it. But most of the increased tax wouldn't be helping the taxpayers, it would be paying off the debt.
The massive debt we have to get off our backs isn't the 14T, it's the $1T a year budget deficit that we are adding to it. We don't have to get the $14T off our backs and if taxes were raised they wouldn't go towards paying off that debt. You're incorrectly assuming that politicians are responsible adults that care as much about repaying as our debt as they do by getting elected by handing out government services
Arguably, if we eliminated the 14T debt and taxed enough to take in 1T a year, everything would work fine.
Lets ask our Euro brothers and sisters how that works for them, yeah?
The good old christian republican ideal of "Jesus loves everyone so I don't have to" is silly. The democratic principle of "take care of me so I don't have to" is equally as silly. But there is a good middle ground. It just can't be accomplished in the current economic state. The solution to that state is not to kill the lower 10% of the population to save the upper 1% a very small portion of their money (not their lives).
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule?
Because as a day trader you provide no utility to the economy...all you do is shuffle money back and forth. Because of that you should have to pay a percentage of your gains so that it can provide some utility.
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece.
It would make no difference if the bottom 47% did pay federal income taxes. The additional tax burden on lower-class Americans would need to be made up for in government transfers in order to avoid all the economic and social problems that we try to avoid by giving them deductions in the first place.
In other words, it works out the same fiscally whether you take a trillion dollars for the poor and give it right back in a different manner, or if you simply waive the taxes. The real difference is that you reduce their economic freedom and expand government, which I would have thought that you would oppose as a conservative. Unless, of course, you're also taking the conservative position that the poor are irresponsible with their money and therefore don't deserve the same economic freedoms that the wealthy do.
The problems of moral hazard with regards to voting yourself lower taxes and more spending will always exist regardless of whether everyone pays taxes. That's a problem with democracy, not the tax system.
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
That's not my point. My point is that taxation is viewed fundamentally differently between EU/US so it's unfair to draw a comparison of taxes.
A different view on something does not make it unfair to draw comparisons, as you yourself have just done, it is however unfair to draw comparisons that assume that taxes are viewed the same way.
*This is all assuming that your data is valid, which I would have to disagree with.
The role of government in a good portion of the EU is a much more involved role with social services such as healthcare, public transportation, etc... The proportion of the taxes that people pay in the EU that go back to the people through services like these is much, much higher than that of US citizens.
Personally I view taxes for what they are, and so do people with brains anywhere around the world, you pay a portion of your income for the benefits the government provides, the people with higher income pay a higher percentage because they can afford to.
I don't disagree with what you said, but one of the reasons there are less social services provided by the govt. in the US is because of the lower tax rate.
On October 17 2011 00:48 MLMNL wrote: 9% is a steal as far as I can see. In the Netherlands, taxes start at ~30% and goes up to ~50% depending on income. There are some ways to deduct from that (for example, mortgage payments can be subtracted from income) and additional charges (for medical care etc.). For modal incomes, that's at least about 3x more then 9%.
We already have 9% taxes on essentials (food etc), everything else is 19%. There are additional charges to stuff as tobacco and petrol, which combine to more then 100% (example, US gas prices are about $3.25/gallon, which is ~$1/litre. Here, we pay E1.7 for a litre, which is $2.33 Notice that assuming no taxes on gas in the US, we pay about 133% ADDITIONAL taxes compared to the US). Clearly, this is again WAY more than 9%.
Conclusion, this 9-9-9 thing seems like a steal to me Many people in the EU feel that the US citizens are sitting on a timebomb with the low taxes, high personal debts, low house prices and HUGE government debt (which US government increases again and again). Perhaps more taxes so government debt may be decreased is a good idea (or at least, reduced debt increment). Consider seeing more taxes as an investment in not having your country forfeit
Still, I'm considering getting work in the US after I finish my education, and I would greatly love to live in a country that's not about to implode on debt, so I wouldn't mind paying a lot higher taxes in the US if it'd help realize that, but I can see that people already living there don't like to see taxes increased. Even 20-20-20 would seem cheap for me as I come in form the EU
See this is the thing you don't understand here in the US taxes don't stop with the federal government.
Currently the Fed takes from 0% - 35% income taxes (depending on your tax bracket). Above and beyond they take 4.2% for social security and 2.9% for medicare, regardless of your tax status (note that earnings above ~$105k/yr they don't take out these taxes).
Each state is different but for instance for my county in NY we have an 8% sales tax rate. Beyond that we have property taxes owed to the town, mine are split into school and town taxes. All told that's about 2% of the assessed value of my house, or about 6% of my yearly income. As if all that weren't enough there are also death taxes (estate), capital gains taxes (investments), ... ad naseum.
I'm 27 and I pay: 25% + 4.2% + 2.9% + 6% + 4% (assume I pay sales tax on half my income) - some % in mortgage payments (I haven't filed taxes since I bought my home).
On October 17 2011 00:02 ScrubS wrote: My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).
If you combine all of America's various taxes, on average it's the second highest taxed country in the world, behind Japan, it just hides it better. Most other countries have a very high income tax rate, however the U.S. also has property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, social security, etc etc etc.
On October 17 2011 01:40 hoganftw wrote: The real problem is that we spend so much money on other countries that there's no way we can possibly make up our debt, regardless of huge tax increases. When you have bases in 130 countries and a perpetual war on terror, there's nothing you can really do about it besides significantly cut spending. After that, we can focus on increasing taxes and working on our debt from there.
If by spending money on other countries you mean blowing them up in order to secure natural resources........ i agree there should be less of that.
On October 17 2011 01:40 hoganftw wrote: The real problem is that we spend so much money on other countries that there's no way we can possibly make up our debt, regardless of huge tax increases. When you have bases in 130 countries and a perpetual war on terror, there's nothing you can really do about it besides significantly cut spending. After that, we can focus on increasing taxes and working on our debt from there.
If by spending money on other countries you mean blowing them up in order to secure natural resources........ i agree there should be less of that.
You mean the United States shouldn't spend more than every other country on Earth combined on the military?
You must be a LoyalistRebelImperialistFacistCommunist Jihadist!
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece.
Why is it, when people say "Half of the country doesn't pay taxes" they point their finger at the lower 50% of earners?
Take a look.
The greyed out part is the fraction of people that don't pay any taxes.
I can't believe that people would think that taxing the crap out of someone making under $10,000 a year makes more sense that removing loopholes that stops people making into the millions, from paying taxes. Doing so would make a MUCH bigger dent in that pie chart.
Did we just forget that our economy REQUIRES people, particularly at the bottom, to consume goods and products? How much do you think they're going to be consuming if you take away any and all of their disposable income in taxes? The economy will come to a complete standstill.
Here's a really good write up about the 9-9-9 plan by Jesse Taylor over at pandagon.
So, a brief thought I had about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan today: it sucks. Pretty much everyone with a brain thinks that it sucks. But I think I came up with a way that it sucks even more than it was previously thought to suck. Walk with me, will you?
The 9-9-9 plan consists of three taxes: a nine percent income tax, a nine percent sales tax, and a nine percent "business tax". The business tax is a receipts tax rather than a profits tax (as the current corporate income tax is). What this means is that you don't get to deduct anything except "investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders." In other words, you're now taxed nine percent on all wages and salaries paid to employees.
Under the current system, an employee whose pre-tax salary is $50,000 actually costs an employer $53,825 once FICA taxes are added. (For the purposes of this post, all we're concerned about is the employee's pre-tax salary and the employer FICA contribution.) This is because the employee pays 7.65% of their income in FICA taxes, and the employer matches with another 7.65% contribution. The 9-9-9 plan would do away with FICA taxes, and one of Cain's promises is that your employer will pay you that 7.65%. He claims to have worked in private industry before, but that statement makes me doubt this claim.
Anyway, there's no FICA tax under the 9-9-9 plan...but there is a business tax. And the money used to pay your $50,000 salary is subject to a 9% tax. That means the cost of paying you is actually $54,500. Using powers of math, the cost of employing you is $675 higher under 9-9-9.
Amazingly, the problem gets worse the more you're paid. FICA tax is not assessed on wages over $106,800. For someone paid $250,000 a year, the total employer-side FICA charged is $8,170.20, for an effective employer rate of 3.26% and a total cost of $258,170.20. Under 9-9-9? Your employer would pay $22,500 in taxes on your salary for a total cost of $272,500.**
Not only do poor people get a drastic tax increase, but every single person in America would instantaneously become more expensive to employ!
TL;DR: Vast majority of people would end up paying *more* in taxes, AND it would cost businesses more to employ Americans.
most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
On October 17 2011 01:40 hoganftw wrote: The real problem is that we spend so much money on other countries that there's no way we can possibly make up our debt, regardless of huge tax increases. When you have bases in 130 countries and a perpetual war on terror, there's nothing you can really do about it besides significantly cut spending. After that, we can focus on increasing taxes and working on our debt from there.
If by spending money on other countries you mean blowing them up in order to secure natural resources........ i agree there should be less of that.
You mean the United States shouldn't spend more than every other country on Earth combined on the military?
You must be a LoyalistRebelImperialistFacistCommunist Jihadist!
On October 17 2011 00:02 ScrubS wrote: My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).
If you combine all of America's various taxes, on average it's the second highest taxed country in the world, behind Japan, it just hides it better. Most other countries have a very high income tax rate, however the U.S. also has property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, social security, etc etc etc.
On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote: most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
Which is how I got to 11% despite making a lot of money. But Cain takes away all those deductions, credits and exemptions so I would pay 9% with his plan, as well as paying 9% more for everything I buy.
On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote: most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
I agree, a lot of people seem to not understand marginal tax rates. If you're in a certain bracket, you only pay that percentage on income above the threshold for that bracket, not all your income.
One thing I'm curious about with Hermain Cain's plan is, does he specify whether basic necessities are exempt from the sales tax? In Canada, we have a national sales tax, but things like groceries and other necessities are exempt and have no sales tax.
I think overall the 9-9-9 plan was a pretty half baked plan that makes for a good sound byte. I don't think Hermain Cain seriously expected to do as well as he is, and thus to have so much scrutiny on his plan, and now it's sort of being exposed because there really aren't a whole lot of details about the plan. Even the CBO estimates about the plan are really just shots in the dark because the plan is just not fully fleshed out at all.
On October 17 2011 00:02 Zealotdriver wrote: LOL at anyone who thinks the 9-9-9 build could ever work. This crap is a distraction from real solutions to our economic crisis.
Not really. An overly complex tax code that promotes collusion and corruption between business and government is one of the main problems behind the crisis, along with individuals getting things they can't afford.
The plan itself may be be imperfect, but the principles of it are closer to meaningful reform than any other plans, which just tweak the status quo. You can't pour new wine into old bottles. Time to rewrite the tax code. We can give turbotax and other tax industries a 3-5 years head start to find new jobs and adapt.
On October 17 2011 00:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: You really need to contrast these kind of proposals with what we have currently. The 9-9-9 plan has plenty of flaws, of course. But every politician who doesn't have a reform proposal is basically advocating the following:
"My tax plan is to have a system of tax code that is tens of thousands of pages long and is so complicated that thousands of people will have to devote their entire education and career to studying it and figuring out how to work it. There will be countless provisions made for individual companies to create exceptions and special privileges, endless loopholes that can be exploited to reduce federal revenue, and hundreds of measures designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, based upon the fiat of politicians."
The system we have now is so stupid and nonsensical and inefficient and complicated that virtually any reform will be a step in the right direction. Don't get so caught up in the details of this specific plan, just recognize the NEED to establish a system that is simple, effective, and equitable.
Anyone who works a job pays taxes. In fact, payroll taxes fall disproportionately on the poor because they are capped at a certain income level. Also, most states have a sales tax, which takes more, as a percentage, out of a person's paycheck if they make less money. This idea that half the population doesn't pay taxes is obviously false and I really wish it wasn't thrown around everywhere.
On October 17 2011 00:02 Zealotdriver wrote: LOL at anyone who thinks the 9-9-9 build could ever work. This crap is a distraction from real solutions to our economic crisis.
Not really. An overly complex tax code that promotes collusion and corruption between business and government is one of the main problems behind the crisis, along with individuals getting things they can't afford.
The plan itself may be be imperfect, but the principles of it are closer to meaningful reform than any other plans, which just tweak the status quo. You can't pour new wine into old bottles. Time to rewrite the tax code. We can give turbotax and other tax industries a 3-5 years head start to find new jobs and adapt.
The plan isn't just imperfect, it is incredibly destructive to most Americans. If anything, compared to the 9-9-9 the complex tax code has proven to protect the little guy (like me).
However, a simple tax code is something we should be moving toward. There is no problem with increasing the tax percentage for individuals who make more money.
Don't want to be in a high tax bracket and pay a high percentage of your income to the government? Then go work at McDonald's and see how much better your life would be...
my father pays about 30% of his income, he is a democrat, but he actually likes the 9/9/9. he says he's not going to even vote this year because he doesn't like any of the democratic candidates and in my state the primaries are closed party so he can't vote for a republican
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece.
you realize they don't pay taxes because they're pretty much poor right?
tell me where you see the difference
Family A: 4 Kids, Husband, Wife. Makes $500,000/yr, pays $125,000 in taxes (just straight 25% lets say, if you're making 500k chances are you know some people and know how to hide shit better and pay less though, but for sake of the argument lets say you are actually signing away 125k).
Family B: 4 Kids, Husband, Wife. Makes $25k/yr, pays $6250 in taxes (thats 25% also). Do you see a problem with this? How are they going to afford food, pay the bills, etc etc? Family A is going to be able to pay all bills and provide food very easily for their family while having a lot of money left over for "wanted" goods, not "needed" goods.
On October 17 2011 02:21 Silidons wrote: my father pays about 30% of his income, he is a democrat, but he actually likes the 9/9/9. he says he's not going to even vote this year because he doesn't like any of the democratic candidates and in my state the primaries are closed party so he can't vote for a republican
Read:
On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote: most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
9/9/9 would most likely increase how much your father pays.
On October 17 2011 01:41 Penecks wrote: Can someone explain how the poor cope with the high taxation of European countries? Some of the EU posters mention like 19% VAT or something like that. Is it due to all the assistance the govt can then give those poorer citizens that balances it? Not trolling I actually have no idea.
Generally the countries with national sales taxes have exemptions for basic necessities such as food.
9-9-9 is awful for the exact reason listed in OP. Is tax law complicated? Yeah, in fact it's retarded at times. I spent all last night reading up on individual taxation and the stupid exclusions, deductions, etc. But all 9-9-9 would do is severely increase taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich. There's a reason for all these deductions.
All of a sudden you have a huge medical bill you have to pay because of a terminal illness. Should you have to pay taxes on the income you received to pay off the medical bill? Congress says no. Should you have to pay income taxes on a scholarship you received for educational purposes? Current tax law says no. Why should you really. Should employees pay income tax for the child care services rendered by the employer, or health insurance, etc? Currently you can deduct this, thus it provides incentives for both employer and employee to engage in this, which is something beneficial for society (actually having decent child care).
I feel people not familiar with what deductions are don't even understand them and think it's the government paying you for doing something. Rather, it's just income you received from your employer that they don't force you to pay in taxes on.
If you're taxed at a 40% marginal rate after federal/state taxes, your employer can either offer you a $3,000 health care plan or give you an additional $3,000 salary. To the employer, it's identical results for them - they're paying $3,000. For you, if you take the salary, you have to buy the $3,000 plan yourself anyways. If you take the plan, you break even. But if you take the salary, you have to pay income tax of $1,200, and you only have $1,800 for the healthcare plan, so in the current state of things it's good to take a $3,000 pay cut and get healthcare.
Deductions/exemptions/etc. are there for good reason - to provide incentives for people to engage in certain acts. The 9-9-9 is awful and only hurts the poor.
On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote: most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
I suggest you take a lesson in tax. Most people when they refer to income taxes paid refer to the overall amount, not what bracket they are in. So if you say "I paid 28% in income taxes last year" you are most likely in the 33% bracket. I'm not sure how you'd "be amazed" as this is a commonly understood fact about income taxes.
On October 17 2011 01:41 Penecks wrote: Can someone explain how the poor cope with the high taxation of European countries? Some of the EU posters mention like 19% VAT or something like that. Is it due to all the assistance the govt can then give those poorer citizens that balances it? Not trolling I actually have no idea.
Generally the countries with national sales taxes have exemptions for basic necessities such as food.
The 9-9-9 plan has no exemptions for food or medicine as stated in the OP just so people fully understand it.
One of the problems in our country is that not every citizen is 'equally invested' in terms of voting. We need to promote more involvement in the public area. One way to do this is to give everyone a tax responsibility. One improvement to the tax code would be to make everyone pay something. Keep the tiers, but make the bottom tier pay 1%. This would promote active engagement in the political process rather than benefitting from tax money, wholly ignorant and unaffected by anything.
On October 17 2011 01:41 Penecks wrote: Can someone explain how the poor cope with the high taxation of European countries? Some of the EU posters mention like 19% VAT or something like that. Is it due to all the assistance the govt can then give those poorer citizens that balances it? Not trolling I actually have no idea.
Generally the countries with national sales taxes have exemptions for basic necessities such as food.
On October 17 2011 01:40 hoganftw wrote: The real problem is that we spend so much money on other countries that there's no way we can possibly make up our debt, regardless of huge tax increases. When you have bases in 130 countries and a perpetual war on terror, there's nothing you can really do about it besides significantly cut spending. After that, we can focus on increasing taxes and working on our debt from there.
If by spending money on other countries you mean blowing them up in order to secure natural resources........ i agree there should be less of that.
you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you even know how much the US gives monetarily to other countries? yes we spend alot of money on the defense budget as well as a shitton on essentially bribes / prop funds to keep certain countries in our favor(pakistan, egypt ect..) or alive (israel) i dont know the exact number but its in the billions if not over a trillion a year
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
One of the problems in our country is that not every citizen is 'equally invested' in terms of voting. We need to promote more involvement in the public area. One way to do this is to give everyone a tax responsibility. One improvement to the tax code would be to make everyone pay something. Keep the tiers, but make the bottom tier pay 1%. This would promote active engagement in the political process rather than benefitting from tax money, wholly ignorant and unaffected by anything.
That's just nonsense. The fact that they depend on state legislation for their own survival means they have more than enough incentive to get involved and engaged in the political system. Everyone in the country is neck-deep in incentive in some way. It's not taxes that gets people involved. It's education. Most people don't vote, not because they don't give a shit, but because they haven't got a godamned clue what's going on.
On October 17 2011 02:21 Silidons wrote: my father pays about 30% of his income, he is a democrat, but he actually likes the 9/9/9. he says he's not going to even vote this year because he doesn't like any of the democratic candidates and in my state the primaries are closed party so he can't vote for a republican
On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote: most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
9/9/9 would most likely increase how much your father pays.
No, my father does not pay actually less tax than that, he is a realtor and when he signs away $100,000 he is actually paying that in tax. He doesn't get a bunch benefits and shit other people get since he is a Realtor, the only non-taxable income he has is shit that has to go towards his business which is not a lot of shit since the main thing a Realtor does is go on the computer, talk on the phone, do paperwork, and drive around.
My family would be doing a hell of a lot better if we paid in the teens. But whats in the bank is whats in the bank, and it's definitely not what it would be if we paid in the teens.
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule?
People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work.
And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out.
How was that fair at all?
Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out.
We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair?
You my friend, are living off welfare.
You are so uninformed it makes my brain explode. Where to begin...
Lets start off with the fact that Daytrading is NOT gambling. As with all market investing there IS an element of uncertainty, but how is that different from long term investing? Its not like daytraders just flip a coin (markets can only go up and down, that'd be 50/50 right?!) If you want to argue that its gambling whatever as with most people I've had this conversation with there will be no way to change your mind - moving on.
Now for the fun... DAYTRADERS GET BAILED OUT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU? GO AHEAD AND FIND THIS FOR ME ROFL.
Banks got bailed out, not day traders. When our risky investments blow up, WE BLOW UP.
Your so miss informed it makes my brain explode.
How is my job not a job? I profit from market fluctuations and inefficiencies, JUST LIKE A LONG TERM INVESTOR I just use different techniques and different time frames. I make 100% educated thought out INVESTMENTS (Trading or "Trades" are just a term used to describe short term buying and selling, but all in all, its still an INVESTMENT). By your definition ANYONE involved in capital markets (they all have risk of default, thus uncertainty, thus by your definition they're gambling).
Oh yeah, capitalism without capital markets...ROFL.
I do not live on welfare, the system GIVES ME nothing. I dont get a bailout when I (Or my firm) explode. I invest smarter than other people in the market (Its a 0 sum game), thus I pull out a profit, just like a long term investor.
That being said, I DONT agree with large risk taking desks on the banks getting full bailouts.
And traders already benefit just fine by being classified as traders (we dont apply to the "wash sale" IRS rule. Traders DONT need any additional taxation breaks, the current system of capital gains + income tax is fine (I'll be fine if the bush cap gain taxes expire). If the elimination of capital gains were to go through, we should be taxed just like everyone else on income.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
And good luck to the middle class for saving up for college tuition for kids. Oh yeah, and no tax credits when that comes around.
This is not to mention the loss of tax revenue on much of the rich, who would pay less taxes under 9/9/9. So given our national budget deficits, maybe 9/9/9 becomes like 10/11/10 in the future or higher!
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich hardly help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues. Adding people to the pool of consumers is the best way to improve the economy.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Nah, it's just a huge coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession hit us during America's two periods of enormous wealth inequality. La-la-la-la-la-la-la.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule?
People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work.
And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out.
How was that fair at all?
Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out.
We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair?
You my friend, are living off welfare.
You are so uninformed it makes my brain explode. Where to begin...
Lets start off with the fact that Daytrading is NOT gambling. As with all market investing there IS an element of uncertainty, but how is that different from long term investing? Its not like daytraders just flip a coin (markets can only go up and down, that'd be 50/50 right?!) If you want to argue that its gambling whatever as with most people I've had this conversation with there will be no way to change your mind - moving on.
Now for the fun... DAYTRADERS GET BAILED OUT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU? GO AHEAD AND FIND THIS FOR ME ROFL.
Banks got bailed out, not day traders. When our risky investments blow up, WE BLOW UP.
Your so miss informed it makes my brain explode.
How is my job not a job? I profit from market fluctuations and inefficiencies, JUST LIKE A LONG TERM INVESTOR I just use different techniques and different time frames. I make 100% educated thought out INVESTMENTS (Trading or "Trades" are just a term used to describe short term buying and selling, but all in all, its still an INVESTMENT). By your definition ANYONE involved in capital markets (they all have risk of default, thus uncertainty, thus by your definition they're gambling).
Oh yeah, capitalism without capital markets...ROFL.
I do not live on welfare, the system GIVES ME nothing. I dont get a bailout when I (Or my firm) explode. I invest smarter than other people in the market (Its a 0 sum game), thus I pull out a profit, just like a long term investor.
That being said, I DONT agree with large risk taking desks on the banks getting full bailouts.
And traders already benefit just fine by being classified as traders (we dont apply to the "wash sale" IRS rule. Traders DONT need any additional taxation breaks, the current system of capital gains + income tax is fine (I'll be fine if the bush cap gain taxes expire). If the elimination of capital gains were to go through, we should be taxed just like everyone else on income.
When the banks got bailed out it, it saved the stock market. Thus if you invested money in X, well the banks finance loans for X, so if the banks go under, then X goes under. And you lose too. It is all connected, look at GM and the relationship between GM, the banks, the insurance industry and government bailout. They are all dependent on each other.
You are dependent on a system that is dependent on the economy never crashing.
Yes, capitalism without capital markets could exist. And it doesn't right now because we bailed out a broken economy.
You're doing your job right now due to the welfare of the tax payers. It wouldn't (and shouldn't) exist if we live in a system that was truly capitalism (in the sense of Adam Smith Capitalism). You live on welfare, congratulations.
On October 17 2011 02:21 Silidons wrote: my father pays about 30% of his income, he is a democrat, but he actually likes the 9/9/9. he says he's not going to even vote this year because he doesn't like any of the democratic candidates and in my state the primaries are closed party so he can't vote for a republican
Read:
On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote: most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
9/9/9 would most likely increase how much your father pays.
No, my father does not pay actually less tax than that, he is a realtor and when he signs away $100,000 he is actually paying that in tax. He doesn't get a bunch benefits and shit other people get since he is a Realtor, the only non-taxable income he has is shit that has to go towards his business which is not a lot of shit since the main thing a Realtor does is go on the computer, talk on the phone, do paperwork, and drive around.
My family would be doing a hell of a lot better if we paid in the teens. But whats in the bank is whats in the bank, and it's definitely not what it would be if we paid in the teens.
Assuming $100,000 is accurate.
You have my sympathies that you're taxed so much, but it doesn't seem like it should hurt your family very much either. Perhaps I'm wrong.
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule?
People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work.
And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out.
How was that fair at all?
Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out.
We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair?
You my friend, are living off welfare.
You are so uninformed it makes my brain explode. Where to begin...
Lets start off with the fact that Daytrading is NOT gambling. As with all market investing there IS an element of uncertainty, but how is that different from long term investing? Its not like daytraders just flip a coin (markets can only go up and down, that'd be 50/50 right?!) If you want to argue that its gambling whatever as with most people I've had this conversation with there will be no way to change your mind - moving on.
Now for the fun... DAYTRADERS GET BAILED OUT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU? GO AHEAD AND FIND THIS FOR ME ROFL.
Banks got bailed out, not day traders. When our risky investments blow up, WE BLOW UP.
Your so miss informed it makes my brain explode.
How is my job not a job? I profit from market fluctuations and inefficiencies, JUST LIKE A LONG TERM INVESTOR I just use different techniques and different time frames. I make 100% educated thought out INVESTMENTS (Trading or "Trades" are just a term used to describe short term buying and selling, but all in all, its still an INVESTMENT). By your definition ANYONE involved in capital markets (they all have risk of default, thus uncertainty, thus by your definition they're gambling).
Oh yeah, capitalism without capital markets...ROFL.
I do not live on welfare, the system GIVES ME nothing. I dont get a bailout when I (Or my firm) explode. I invest smarter than other people in the market (Its a 0 sum game), thus I pull out a profit, just like a long term investor.
That being said, I DONT agree with large risk taking desks on the banks getting full bailouts.
And traders already benefit just fine by being classified as traders (we dont apply to the "wash sale" IRS rule. Traders DONT need any additional taxation breaks, the current system of capital gains + income tax is fine (I'll be fine if the bush cap gain taxes expire). If the elimination of capital gains were to go through, we should be taxed just like everyone else on income.
When the banks got bailed out it, it saved the stock market. Thus if you invested money in X, well the banks finance loans for X, so if the banks go under, then X goes under. And you lose too.
Yes, capitalism without capital markets could exist. And it doesn't right now because we bailed out a broken economy.
You're doing your job right now due to the welfare of the tax payers. You live on welfare, congratulations.
Yeah, the stock market got bailed out, including the investments (PENSIONS 401ks) of Hundreds of millions of Americans. I live on welfare no more than you do.
EDIT: And had i been a bad trader during that time of market turmoil, I would have blown my account up, lost my principal (capital) gone bust and bankrupt. You have NO idea what you're talking about.
I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote: I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market).
You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc.
Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax.
You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
Take my small business. If we got a big tax cut it would do nothing because our sales are slow. Give people more money to buy our products, and our sales will pickup and maybe we'll hire people.
The problem here isn't that people want a product but there isn't enough of it, the problem is there isn't enough consumers and companies are competing over a smaller and smaller pool of them. This is how basic supply and demand works.
You guys really need to read Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations.
Your thinking is backwards. You seem to think there are lots of people out there who have tons of money to spend and with tax cuts you can just hire more workers and make more stuff and just make tons of money. It doesn't work like that, and I know, because I own a business.
You scale your business (supply) to the demand for your products. Demand controls everything. Occasionally something new and neat comes out (like the first auto, computer, cell phone) that creates a lot of opportunity, but we can't rely on these for a good long term economy.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
Take my small business. If we got a big tax cut it would do nothing because our sales are slow. Give people more money to buy our products, and our sales will pickup and maybe we'll hire people.
The problem here isn't that people want a product but there isn't enough of it, the problem is there isn't enough consumers and companies are competing over a smaller and smaller pool of them. This is how basic supply and demand works.
You guys really need to read Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations.
You're citing a 100% situation by situation problem. That situation is specific to YOUR business, there are plenty of businesses that simply cant afford to hire more people immediately (IMMEDIATELY) because the budget doesnt allow it. They would have to wait until they've generated more money, to have a risk cushion, to hire more people.
Your situation isn't unique, but neither is the one i cited.
NO a tax break doesn't benefit every business out there, but its just moronic to say that business owners wouldn't benefit from a tax cut.
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote: I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market).
You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc.
Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax.
You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the crash that would have happened. There amount of money that would be floating around to trade back and forth would have been equal to pennies. There would be no way to make money the way Day Traders do now.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
Take my small business. If we got a big tax cut it would do nothing because our sales are slow. Give people more money to buy our products, and our sales will pickup and maybe we'll hire people.
The problem here isn't that people want a product but there isn't enough of it, the problem is there isn't enough consumers and companies are competing over a smaller and smaller pool of them. This is how basic supply and demand works.
You guys really need to read Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations.
And Cohen and Rogers' On Democracy. Specifically Chapter 3, page 56. :D
While this isn't a reason to not pass the 9-9-9 if it was good (which it isn't) there is direct harm to any massive upheavals to the tax system.
You would put about 1,000,000 people who work in the tax industry out of work. People whose job it is to understand the overly complex system. Also, millions of people have long term plans based on the CURRENT system. If any changes were made to the system they would have to be gradual over the course of a decade + . People need time to adjust and the system needs time to change. It can't take the type of shock Cain is endorsing.
Couple that with the fact the idea itself is insulting to a thinking mind and you know this can't win.
It is a bad a sign when the only economists endorsing your plan are the person who helped write it and the evil man behind trickle down poverty economics.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
Unemployment has increased during these tax breaks. So yes.
"Your thinking is backwards. You seem to think there are lots of people out there who have tons of money to spend and with tax cuts you can just hire more workers and make more stuff and just make tons of money. It doesn't work like that, and I know, because I own a business.
You scale your business (supply) to the demand for your products. Demand controls everything. Occasionally something new and neat comes out (like the first auto, computer, cell phone) that creates a lot of opportunity or a new industry, but we can't rely on these for a good long term economy."
This is important. If there are more consumers there is more demand. Rich people being richer doesn't increase demand for things very much since they can already afford whatever they want. People without jobs getting money does increase demand for things.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy.
We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws?
History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote: I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market).
You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc.
Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax.
You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the crash that would have happened. There amount of money that would be floating around to trade back and forth would have been equal to pennies. There would be no way to make money the way Day Traders do now.
Assets would be "hard" not paper or electronic.
Do you think I care what the price of the securities were? If the price of apple stock was 4$ (Mega crash) vs 400$ What difference is it to me? How do I make less money? Yes the market cap or the "Money floating around" is lower, no difference to me.
Do care if there a few less trillion dollars out floating in capital markets? What difference is it to me?
If a security price is 1/00th what it is now, I simply buy(sell) 100 times more. How much money I make is determined by how much money I INVEST vs movement in the security.
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote: I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market).
You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc.
Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax.
You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the crash that would have happened. There amount of money that would be floating around to trade back and forth would have been equal to pennies. There would be no way to make money the way Day Traders do now.
Assets would be "hard" not paper or electronic.
Do you think I care what the price of the securities were? If the price of apple stock was 4$ (Mega crash) vs 400$ What difference is it to me? How do I make less money? Yes the market cap or the "Money floating around" is lower, no difference to me.
Do care if there a few less trillion dollars out floating in capital markets? What difference is it to me?
If a security price is 1/00th what it is now, I simply buy(sell) 100 times more. How much money I make is determined by how much money I INVEST vs movement in the security.
100,000 $4 stocks are worth a lot less than 100,000 $400 stocks. You're assuming these things are limitless.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
That's supply side economics which is completely stupid. People aren't going to buy more ketchup because there is more ketchup to buy, they're going to buy ketchup if they can afford it (and they like ketchup)
On October 17 2011 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: You would put about 1,000,000 people who work in the tax industry out of work. People whose job it is to understand the overly complex system.
You can just employ all of them to carry water to the ocean till retirement. Really, if you want to improve the economy you really want to free up this wasted labor so they can get productive jobs. It's like wasting SCVs.
Also, millions of people have long term plans based on the CURRENT system. If any changes were made to the system they would have to be gradual over the course of a decade + . People need time to adjust and the system needs time to change. It can't take the type of shock Cain is endorsing.
This is an argument against all reforms. If a reform is good on the long term you want to carry it through. If it has short time bad side effects, which it almost always have, you have to think about how to reduce those. Not doing them is just the inferior decision.
It is a bad a sign when the only economists endorsing your plan are the person who helped write it and the evil man behind trickle down poverty economics.
Use the failed idea of the trickle down economy theory instead. It's much much stronger than the arguments you made here. Trickle down economics is a proven hoax to the degree almost no one that promotes it actually believes it themselves.
On October 17 2011 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: You would put about 1,000,000 people who work in the tax industry out of work. People whose job it is to understand the overly complex system.
You can just employ all of them to carry water to the ocean till retirement. Really, if you want to improve the economy you really want to free up this wasted labor so they can get productive jobs. It's like wasting SCVs.
Also, millions of people have long term plans based on the CURRENT system. If any changes were made to the system they would have to be gradual over the course of a decade + . People need time to adjust and the system needs time to change. It can't take the type of shock Cain is endorsing.
This is an argument against all reforms. If a reform is good on the long term you want to carry it through. If it has short time bad side effects, which it almost always have, you have to think about how to reduce those. Not doing them is just the inferior decision.
It is a bad a sign when the only economists endorsing your plan are the person who helped write it and the evil man behind trickle down poverty economics.
Use the failed idea of the trickle down economy theory instead. It's much much stronger than the arguments you made here. Trickle down economics is a proven hoax to the degree almost no one that promotes it actually believes it themselves.
I wasn't trying to undermine 999 itself since that is done effectively already by everyone else in this thread. Instead I was actually adding something else which should also be considered. If it was up to Cain this reform would happen over the course of a few years. That sort of shock would cause massive upheaval in the system. In no way am I saying reform is bad. I'm saying i can't be sudden in a system as massive and complex as the US one.
Everything I said is true and applies. To what degree it should be concerned I don't care.
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote: That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
401(k) savings are supposedly safe, which is why we all like them. That's the financial world we live in, where risk is so undervalued it is non-existent. You're right in principle, of course, putting anything into the stock market is a risk.
I do think it's interesting that this came up, since Herman Cain also advocates privatizing Social Security - putting every penny of our future retirement funds at risk in the stock market. Even after the 2008 crash. That could never happen again, right?
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy.
We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws?
History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events.
Clearly Cain should have gone with the 1-1-1 tax plan, I hear that terrans cannot physically lose with that.
No but seriously I am actually remarkably infuriated with the state of american politics. I understand that differences in opinion can yield to additional debate within congress but when the republicans are trailing in increasing margins behind obama and the democrats at large for 2012 elections and the overall approval rating for congress is sitting at 12% you would think that they would put 2 and 2 together (instead of 9 and 9 and 9) and realize that they MUST moderate their position.
I'm very liberal on some issues and very conservative on others, and I'll probably be voting for Obama this election, but it is more a result of fear of a republican winning than confidence in the democrats.
Sigh.
If only the mainstream american politician would work to better america and not her or himself.
Without even looking at the details of this tax code, i am against it for one reason. 9% sales tax. For one we don't need to give government another way to take our money that can just be hiked up down the road.And the second one, I live in Texas, which has a 8.75% sales tax already so with that I will pay 18% sales tax on anything I buy... Fuck that!
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
I think there are plenty of holes in Herman Cain's plan, but I appreciate the simplicity and fairness of it and would love to see other representatives try to make it work.
I feel like I can relate to the OP's situation a bit, because it sounds similar to mine 5 years ago. My wife and I had been married a year and together we were making about the same as him. We started a business, then had 2 children (one is less than 2 weeks now), and now I'm the sole-provider of my family of 4 making ~85k/year.
My feelings about the 999 plan are a bit different though.
The beauty of it for me, is that it enables all income levels to save money. All of the tax credits/deductions the OP described come after the fact - i.e. we pay the federal government 25%-28% of our salaries directly from our paychecks and then at the beginning of the year we pay an accountant or online tax system to try and get it all back for us. At 9% income tax, we would be receiving a 16%-19% boost to all of our paychecks. Assuming that I live check to check, I would still have 7%-10% left over for savings. This means we can benefit from no capital gains tax too! The math adds up for me.
The sad part of this plan is that this windfall of money each paycheck will only be short-term. Once we are used to having a new tax system, prices will change to force people to spend more than they can afford. I can almost guarantee this because of the number of industries that would be affected by the government welfare being removed from their production processes. And history shows that it's easier for corporations to raise prices than to innovate.
Herman Cain's plan is a path to allowing state taxes to become more prominent than national taxes. I don't mind this, in fact I prefer it, but at the same time I recognize that it won't change anything on its own. Whether we attack it from a national side or as individual states it all starts with citizens becoming more accountable for their actions and holding their representatives more accountable.
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote: Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy.
We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws?
History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events.
And why do you think markets crash, hmm? Oh of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stretching the lower classes so thin to the point they can't purchase anything anymore. It makes perfect sense now, the Great Depression happened because magically, everyone decided to just stop buying stuff!
Utter idiocy. You can't have an upper class without lower classes to sustain them, and if we continue current trends we either reach the point where we have to literally kick the poor out of the country because they're not useful to us anymore (what good is a person who works for a pittance, and then pays all of that in taxes to a government that spends all of that tax money giving them food and a place to live so they can continue to do that work? I'm sure you know what that system is called), or the wealthy and powerful stop screwing over long-term stability for the sake of short-term profit.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right? Right?
Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy.
We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws?
History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events.
And why do you think markets crash, hmm? Oh of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stretching the lower classes so thin to the point they can't purchase anything anymore. It makes perfect sense now, the Great Depression happened because magically, everyone decided to just stop buying stuff!
Utter idiocy. You can't have an upper class without lower classes to sustain them, and if we continue current trends we either reach the point where we have to literally kick the poor out of the country because they're not useful to us anymore (what good is a person who works for a pittance, and then pays all of that in taxes to a government that spends all of that tax money giving them food and a place to live so they can continue to do that work? I'm sure you know what that system is called), or the wealthy and powerful stop screwing over long-term stability for the sake of short-term profit.
Fine you can ramble on all you want, and the wealth disparity high points may be a result of the crash, but please realize that almost no economists agree with what your theories on why the markets crash. So I'm not inclined to believe them either.
On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote: 9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge.
How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
You are getting it wrong. There is nothing free, its all paid for by taxes. It just depends do you have the government spreading money from one person to another and to what degree.
For example the "free" medicine you get in europe is not free, you are paying for it. It works on the premise that you keep paying as long as you can work and that you don't get sick enough and overall the money you put in is more than what the cost of the healthcare would be and so when someone gets really sick there is sort of a cushion of money that is used for his care.
9-9-9 is a tax increase on middle and lower income families, and in time would also be a massive tax increase on everyone. You think 9-9-9 is going to stay 9-9-9 like the Income Tax stayed at 1% for the wealthy only? Yeah, right, and I have a box of 1 oz gold coins to sell you for 5$. If you want to reduce taxes, you eliminate the tax completely. Furthermore, you must also severely diminish, reduce, and eliminate Government power. Either the power is in the hands of the individual or the Government. Individual empowerment is always preferable to State-power. So, you diminish the power of the State and return it to individuals thereby making most taxes unnecessary and thus, abolishment of them. We have to curb the appetite of the average American for Nanny-State paternalism & Daddy-State sense of security (Welfare-Warfare). If we fail to do that, arguing over taxes is silly. The spending is the problem, and the spending is the symptom of the appetite for largesse Government. Cain addresses none of these issues.
If you are serious about these issues only Ron Paul addresses them head on and with actual solutions. It's time for America to return to the America De Tocqueville described, and not some machination of Fascist Italy & Euro-State Social Democracy.
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two.
If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy.
We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws?
History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events.
And why do you think markets crash, hmm? Oh of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stretching the lower classes so thin to the point they can't purchase anything anymore. It makes perfect sense now, the Great Depression happened because magically, everyone decided to just stop buying stuff!
Utter idiocy. You can't have an upper class without lower classes to sustain them, and if we continue current trends we either reach the point where we have to literally kick the poor out of the country because they're not useful to us anymore (what good is a person who works for a pittance, and then pays all of that in taxes to a government that spends all of that tax money giving them food and a place to live so they can continue to do that work? I'm sure you know what that system is called), or the wealthy and powerful stop screwing over long-term stability for the sake of short-term profit.
Fine you can ramble on all you want, and the wealth disparity high points may be a result of the crash, but please realize that almost no economists agree with what your theories on why the markets crash. So I'm not inclined to believe them either.
*sigh* It's a perfectly well-articulated, valid theory on the cause of the Great Depression. Overinvestment in industry and profits being pushed straight into the stockmarket, rather than invested in people's purchasing power, limited consumers to the point that everything fell apart from the bottom up.
The beauty of it for me, is that it enables all income levels to save money. All of the tax credits/deductions the OP described come after the fact - i.e. we pay the federal government 25%-28% of our salaries directly from our paychecks and then at the beginning of the year we pay an accountant or online tax system to try and get it all back for us. At 9% income tax, we would be receiving a 16%-19% boost to all of our paychecks. Assuming that I live check to check, I would still have 7%-10% left over for savings. This means we can benefit from no capital gains tax too! The math adds up for me.
Economists agree that the 9-9-9 would raise taxes on middle class families, up to twice as much as they pay now. (Partly due to elimination of tax breaks for child care, and partly due to the highly regressive sales tax.) Sure it lets you save money, but it's less money than you save right now. And how many middle class families would really benefit from 0% tax on capital gains? That particular tax cut benefits almost exclusively the wealthy.
Don't get me wrong, I desperately want a simpler tax code, but the facts are that the 9-9-9 plan raises taxes on the middle class and cuts taxes on the wealthy. Isn't that the definition of wealth redistribution that conservatives hate so much?
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two.
If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
Of course, but it's regulation that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
It's not one or the other. If you really want progressive taxes that's fine, but you should still make them expenditure based. The thing is if you DO take from the rich more than they earn, yeah at some point the rich won't be rich anymore, but the poor won't be in better shape either.
Our workforce needs to be made competitive in order for people to be able to get jobs. Sure, you can say that our standard of living is too high in order for our workforce to be competitive, but that's not the whole story, we also have a ton of regulations many of which are driven by special interests that make our workforce more expensive and less efficient.
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two.
If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
Wealthy disparity is a result of Government spending and Government policy. Giving more money to the Government only exacerbates the disparity. It is a result of a system that has a Central Banking system with Government-enforced legal tender laws / fiat-currencies, regulations which shield large businesses from competition from smaller market entrants (and would-be entrants), and a system of patronage from public coffers (subsidies, bailouts, Government-guarantees (Fannie/Freddie), etc.), etc. etc.
The American economic system has largely been unchanged since the 1920's. Over-time it has become more and more centralized, centrally planned, and onerous (bureaucratic socialism with Corporatism). The problem is in the scope, size, and power of the State. Don't take it from me -- just look at the research of the New Leftists like Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams. The same folks who looked fondly back at the Articles of Confederation for Community empowerment (States 'rights', powers, etc.).
The fact is we have a problem of patronage/cronyism which is a symptom of a Government whose power knows little limits. It is this patronage that comes in the form of bailouts, subsidies, regulatory regimes, grants of privilege and immunity (Federal Reserve, Licensing, etc.), and many other impositions upon free-enterprise.
If the 'left' would look to the actual problem like Kevin Carson & many of the libertarian-left, do, then we could actually have a worthwhile alliance to tackle this problem. If we worked together to end Government power, we would well be on our way to fixing the large disparity we find ourselves stuck with today. The Government has always worked for the wealthy and elite. From North Korea to the USSR to modern-day Germany to the USA, to the Congo and Thailand. Why you would want to give this entity more power which is a de-facto acquiscence of your natural rights and individual empowerment, is quite frankly one of the greatest propaganda successes in history. Right up there with William F. Buckley turning conservatism into Progressivism.
PS: Progressivism being a movement for large business interests.
A radically new interpretation of the Progressive Era which argues that business leaders, and not the reformers, inspired the era’s legislation regarding business.
^ Same shit that goes on today. Progressives shielding business from competition through regulatory regimes with such uncritical thinking to not realize that running out the folks who cannot afford these burdens doesn't hurt big business, but helps!
I'm sorry.. do you really have a business? because you can deduct 100% of the taxes on the items you buy that are for your business... so I don't get how you think you'll pay more taxes under cain's 999
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two.
If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
Of course, but it's regulation that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
It's not one or the other. If you really want progressive taxes that's fine, but you should still make them expenditure based. The thing is if you DO take from the rich more than they earn, yeah at some point the rich won't be rich anymore, but the poor won't be in better shape either.
Our workforce needs to be made competitive in order for people to be able to get jobs. Sure, you can say that our standard of living is too high in order for our workforce to be competitive, but that's not the whole story, we also have a ton of regulations many of which are driven by special interests that make our workforce more expensive and less efficient.
Well, that's the thing, we're ALL living beyond the means of what is sustainable right now, but the top is where the source of the problem lies. They control where the money goes after all, and if they keep letting it fly out the door, we're all going to find ourselves with nothing left.
US workforces are competitive because they're a damned sight more productive than foreign labour, but less people care about the less tangible benefits of hiring a US worker to do, say, a software programming project without issue than the lower costs, but logistical and unproductive nightmare that is hiring 6 Indian software programmers to do the same job. They're cheaper, so fuck it, hire those guys, instead! Nevermind the fact that the time-zone difference becomes a burden on communication, the language barrier often gets in the way, nobody is local to directly micromanage problems and mistakes, and before you know it, you've just spent twice as much, and taken twice as long, on the project as you would have done hiring some properly trained and qualified people, who despite wanting health benefits, would have ended up costing you less, to do the job from the get-go. But, the 'promise' of getting the job done in the same time, with half the cost was too tempting. And we fall for that stupid behaviour again and again. Same reason consumers buy some cheap, crappy short lifespan Vaccuum Cleaner rather than a Dyson (frigging love those things). It's easier to sell something on low cost, than high quality.
On October 17 2011 00:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: People also need to realize that as long as the government is bringing in the same total revenue, people are being taxed the same rate.
People as in the whole society sure. But how the tax burden is divided among the individual who make up "people" is a totally different.
I would pay a lot more under Herman Cain, as would the average American who makes less than 100,000 (who depends on multiple exemptions and deductions in the current code).
People who make a lot of money on investments (like Herman Cain) would save a lot of money due to no capital games tax.
Ultimately you are going to have to pay more. It's going to be a necessity to raise taxes on all americans to prevent a complete government default.
And people keep repeating this argument about capital gains... it's been going for months now. That's a simple problem to fix: If this was a 7-7-7-7 plan would you be satisfied? No, because you are still paying more and the rich still have more money than you, right?
I have no problem paying more, but everyone should pay more. I shouldn't pay $6,000 more per year while Herman Cain saves millions.
We can all agree on that.
Or if you don't agree, are you arguing that everyone should pay the same percentage regardless? If so, please tell me.
last time I checked 9% of 25k is much less then 9% of 1,000,000..... Last time I checked it was never promised that America is the land of equality...America is the land of opportunity. I can understand why so many people are upset with this proposal. Paying income tax for the first time would suck, but maybe its time those who have enjoyed the benefits of this country for free start paying their part too...
This is what i love about my country, all the fuzz against chavez and what not, yet we only pay taxes (besides IVA (12% only), which is basically VAT on every purchase, which every country in the world pay), if you win more money than a certain threshold.
If you are employed, you pay taxes if you win more than 1.000 U.T. (Tribute units), which are 1= 72 BSF. so you need to win over Bsf. 72.000 monthly for them to charge you (around Bsf. 6.000 monthly), Engineers and Professionals earn that ammount, NOT everyone does.
If you go by yourself, you pay taxes when you earn more than 1.500 U.T. which is BsF. 108.000, or Bsf. 9.000 monthly, no free business??, yeah right...
And if you do Agriculture, Fishing, or other form of producing food, you only get taxed when you earn more than 2.625 U.T. or Bsf. 189.000 or bsf. 15.700 monthly, to stimulate food independency.
U.T. are revised annualy to compensate inflation. So you always need to earn more money to pay taxes if inflation was high.
Those salarys may seem low, but with PPP (Power Purchasing Parity) they are not, here with Bsf. 4.300, you can live well, the equivalent would be $1.000, in the US with $1.000 you live like crap.
$0.11 cents a gallon of gasoline makes everything cheap
What the US should take is a similar approach when the poorest dont get taxed at all, and begin from there, also it WOULD HELP having an oil industry of its own, fuck Chevron, Exxon and every mother fucker, Oil should be state owned, PERIOD.
Also regulate Credit card, mortages, passive and actve interest rates and you will get better.
its funny how pretty much the whole fucking world is fucked up, yet ill be honest, we are pretty much untouched, for what supposedly are "bad policys", yet here we are better than ever. (and its not because high oil, even when oil was near $40/barrel, we were pretty much untouched)
Also US State owned Oil, would mean cheaper oil prices, have to love when oil prices go down, YET gas prices dont.
aniways if you want even a glimpse of hope of getting out of that hole, you gotta vote for Ron Paul, is the only one i have seen that has a clue of wtf he is talking about
On October 17 2011 06:00 crown77 wrote: I'm sorry.. do you really have a business? because you can deduct 100% of the taxes on the items you buy that are for your business... so I don't get how you think you'll pay more taxes under cain's 999
i think this is the wrong way to go about it. you need to a have a relatively increasing tax system, so that people under say 30.000 a year only pay 10%, while those over 200,000 pay over 50%
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two.
If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
Of course, but it's regulation that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
It's not one or the other. If you really want progressive taxes that's fine, but you should still make them expenditure based. The thing is if you DO take from the rich more than they earn, yeah at some point the rich won't be rich anymore, but the poor won't be in better shape either.
Our workforce needs to be made competitive in order for people to be able to get jobs. Sure, you can say that our standard of living is too high in order for our workforce to be competitive, but that's not the whole story, we also have a ton of regulations many of which are driven by special interests that make our workforce more expensive and less efficient.
Well, that's the thing, we're ALL living beyond the means of what is sustainable right now, but the top is where the source of the problem lies. They control where the money goes after all, and if they keep letting it fly out the door, we're all going to find ourselves with nothing left.
If they're not spending the money, and our own businesses become profitable ventures, then the money will also stay here, and some money will come from overseas.
in the end the amount of wealth we're gonna have is going to be proportionate to how productive our economy is in general. So I think it would make sense to try to get the government out of the way in those areas where they are clearly limiting out productivity.
US workforces are competitive because they're a damned sight more productive than foreign labour, but less people care about the less tangible benefits of hiring a US worker to do, say, a software programming project without issue than the lower costs, but logistical and unproductive nightmare that is hiring 6 Indian software programmers to do the same job. They're cheaper, so fuck it, hire those guys, instead! Nevermind the fact that the time-zone difference becomes a burden on communication, the language barrier often gets in the way, nobody is local to directly micromanage problems and mistakes, and before you know it, you've just spent twice as much, and taken twice as long, on the project as you would have done hiring some properly trained and qualified people, who despite wanting health benefits, would have ended up costing you less, to do the job from the get-go. But, the 'promise' of getting the job done in the same time, with half the cost was too tempting. And we fall for that stupid behaviour again and again. Same reason consumers buy some cheap, crappy short lifespan Vaccuum Cleaner rather than a Dyson (frigging love those things). It's easier to sell something on low cost, than high quality.
Well all that means it that quality is overpriced right now, or at least considered to be overpriced.
If dyson was only like 5 % more expensive. than the cheap one then people would buy it, so this isn't necessarily the case of people always going with cheaper.
I think this is a case of people questioning how much the quality of our labor is really worth with resepect to the end result, and it turns out people think that the quality of labor is too expensive, so I think this is the right time to try to lower the cost of labor without decreasing the pay, and this is related to the liability that comes with hiring, and etc.
So a big thing that people are mentioning is the capital gains tax, and "why do day traders not have to pay the same taxes".
One thing I honestly wonder and do not know: Under the 9-9-9 plan, or under the current system, does a stock market trade count as a retail transaction? That is, would it be subject to a sales tax, either federal or state?
I personally would hope that it is. It would take a certain amount of volatility out of the markets (the kind of volatility that only high-frequency trading algorithms can take advantage of), and make the markets much less subject to speculation.
On October 16 2011 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote: You'll wonder how that can be, when this will slash even the lowest income tax rates, but it is pretty simple. Many Americans depend heavily on deductions and his plan eliminates all exemptions and deductions.
Overall I think the 9-9-9 plan is good, but the problem is that it's too different from what we currently have and it would be very disruptive.
It's true that many Americans depend heavily on deductions, but at the same time, depending on deductions is bad in the first place! You said you'd pay about $6000 more in taxes under the 9-9-9 plan, but do you realize that if deductions did not exist if the first place, you'd probably save $10000 a year elsewhere?
This doesn't mean you'll save with a 9-9-9; it's too late and you'd be already screwed. My point is, you paid at a huge premium on your house because the deduction existed in the first place, yet the deduction you get doesn't actually make up for that. If you bought a house for $400k, then you paid at least $100k more just because the deduction existed in the first place.
The 9-9-9 plan is an attempt to get tax rates to what they SHOULD be, but it's going to be painful for some, especially homeowners with your level of income. Actually many homeowners would get double-screwed because the price of their home would fall substantially without the deductions, so a more transitional plan would be better.
The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
On October 16 2011 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote: You'll wonder how that can be, when this will slash even the lowest income tax rates, but it is pretty simple. Many Americans depend heavily on deductions and his plan eliminates all exemptions and deductions.
Overall I think the 9-9-9 plan is good, but the problem is that it's too different from what we currently have and it would be very disruptive.
It's true that many Americans depend heavily on deductions, but at the same time, depending on deductions is bad in the first place! You said you'd pay about $6000 more in taxes under the 9-9-9 plan, but do you realize that if deductions did not exist if the first place, you'd probably save $10000 a year elsewhere?
This doesn't mean you'll save $10000 with a 9-9-9; it's too late and you'd be already screwed. My point is, you paid at least a 35% premium on your house because the deduction existed in the first place, yet the deduction you get doesn't actually make up for that 35%.
The 9-9-9 plan is an attempt to get tax rates to what they SHOULD be, but it's going to be painful for some, especially homeowners with your level of income. Actually many homeowners would get double-screwed because the price of their home would fall substantially without the deductions, so a more transitional plan would be better.
On October 16 2011 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote: You'll wonder how that can be, when this will slash even the lowest income tax rates, but it is pretty simple. Many Americans depend heavily on deductions and his plan eliminates all exemptions and deductions.
Overall I think the 9-9-9 plan is good, but the problem is that it's too different from what we currently have and it would be very disruptive.
It's true that many Americans depend heavily on deductions, but at the same time, depending on deductions is bad in the first place! You said you'd pay about $6000 more in taxes under the 9-9-9 plan, but do you realize that if deductions did not exist if the first place, you'd probably save $10000 a year elsewhere?
This doesn't mean you'll save $10000 with a 9-9-9; it's too late and you'd be already screwed. My point is, you paid at least a 35% premium on your house because the deduction existed in the first place, yet the deduction you get doesn't actually make up for that 35%.
The 9-9-9 plan is an attempt to get tax rates to what they SHOULD be, but it's going to be painful for some, especially homeowners with your level of income. Actually many homeowners would get double-screwed because the price of their home would fall substantially without the deductions, so a more transitional plan would be better.
Explain.
I edited my post to be clear. The numbers may vary, but the fact is the mortgage interest + property tax deduction massively inflates the price of a house. It also favors the wealthy much more than you think -- they buy up property and rent it out.
It's very reasonable to say that if you average $2000 on housing a month, at least $800 of that is caused by the existence of the deduction. And you won't get $800 back from the deduction. In other words, the deduction is a scam that's strongly supported by the real estate industry as a means to drive up housing prices.
On October 17 2011 07:01 dookudooku wrote: The 9-9-9 plan is an attempt to get tax rates to what they SHOULD be, but it's going to be painful for some, especially homeowners with your level of income. Actually many homeowners would get double-screwed because the price of their home would fall substantially without the deductions, so a more transitional plan would be better.
This is one of the points that I think people forget. There's no reason why we have to try to transition to an entirely new tax code over a short period of time. Especially with the amount of human capital invested in managing taxes with the IRS and tax accountants and lawyers, it's going to take time for those people to find other jobs. but still, there's no reason we can't say:
For the next 9 years, every deduction and every federal tax that exists currently will decrease linearly from wherever it is now, to zero. While this is happening, the new federal corporate/sales/income taxes will increase 1% each year.
No honest person is saying we're going to transition instantaneously as fast as a bill can get through congress. There are tons of people, like it or not, whose entire livelihood is based upon the federal government having an impenetrable 60,000 page tax code. If we want those people to transition to jobs that are going to actually produce something helpful for America as a society and an economy, it's going to take time. But if we follow a smooth linear transition like I mentioned, it can happen gradually and relatively painlessly. And in the end, we'll have less people pushing paper around, and more people in jobs that actually help the economy.
(and y'know, I think most people would be happy if it turned into a 9-9-9-9 plan, with the 4th 9 being capital gains. I really honestly hope someone brings that up in a debate eventually.)
I would never ever want an economics plan to be passed when one of the main merits of the plan is that it's easy to remember because it arbitrarily uses to same number for 3 largely unrelated taxes.
poor people would have to pay more taxes and rich individuals would pay significantly less. people that are living around the poverty line losing 9 percent of income is relatively a lot to them, while the opposite is not true.
and getting ride of capital gains tax benefit the wealthy more compared to the rest of the population.
On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote: The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead.
I talked about this before, and one of the more amusing poitns of the 9-9-9 plan is the sales tax.
Unlike traditional sales taxes in many states, cain's tax actually hits at all levels of production. Thus making the sales tax multiply ad every additional level in the chain. Such that say on the movement of wheat to bread looks like this.
Farmer sells to wheat supplier at 1.00 +.09 tax for the supplier Supplier sells to bread maker at 1.09+ .0981 tax Supplier sells to grocery for 1.188 + .1069 tax You buy from grocery 1.2949 + .1165 Tax Bread is now a total cost of about 1.4114 and thats considering that no one in this example wanted to do anything but break even, and of course you'll find in the world there are often more than 4 levels of production for many goods, not including how the increases in prices due to the tax would affect the materials the farmer used to get said wheat.
According to his website hes hoping that the reduction in taxes no longer applicable to the industries will compensate and keep prices in line. (of course that line of thought doesn't even make sense in the corp tax world but whatever) Which is a lot more hope that Obama asked for.
You're giving the man too much credit if you think the cost of good will only go up 9%
On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote: The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead.
It's hilarious when people make hyperbolic arguments just to make it easy for people to try and discredit their actual point, and yet STILL all they can get in response is an ad hominem.
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule?
Well, a baker has his bread to show for his work. A business owner has whatever his business produces, the policeman protects your rights and has criminals in prison to show for his work. What do you have to show for your work? In my eyes, you're just a leech off the system. Oh no, you get double taxed. Triple, nay quadruple, daytraders taxes is my stance. You're not even doing long term investing with daytrading. Twisting money in that way shouldn't be paid good at all, but maybe be a hobby you make 3-4 dollars an hour to do.
But enough of my personal opinion.
Someone has to get the short end of the stick. This time it's daytraders and other small groups. In reality, it should be the banks, but they're "too big to fail" lol.
On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote: The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead.
It's hilarious when people make hyperbolic arguments just to make it easy for people to try and discredit their actual point, and yet STILL all they can get in response is an ad hominem.
Coraz must really be onto something.
He's on something. Not onto something. He says we should eliminate the ATF and FDA, the organizations which create and enforce drug laws, and end the CIA, the organization killing Al Qaeda (et al) soldiers who also happen to benefit off the growth and sale of heroin, while simultaneously referring to two serious political candidates as occultists.
On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote: The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead.
It's hilarious when people make hyperbolic arguments just to make it easy for people to try and discredit their actual point, and yet STILL all they can get in response is an ad hominem.
Coraz must really be onto something.
He's on something. Not onto something. He says we should eliminate the ATF and FDA, the organizations which create and enforce drug laws, and end the CIA, the organization killing Al Qaeda (et al) soldiers who also happen to benefit off the growth and sale of heroin, while simultaneously referring to two serious political candidates as occultists.
That wasn't emotion, that was blunt logic.
FDA is driving up the cost of medicine and healthcare sooo much. ATF picks winners and losers all the time, both are heavily influenced by lobbyists.
The beauty of it for me, is that it enables all income levels to save money. All of the tax credits/deductions the OP described come after the fact - i.e. we pay the federal government 25%-28% of our salaries directly from our paychecks and then at the beginning of the year we pay an accountant or online tax system to try and get it all back for us. At 9% income tax, we would be receiving a 16%-19% boost to all of our paychecks. Assuming that I live check to check, I would still have 7%-10% left over for savings. This means we can benefit from no capital gains tax too! The math adds up for me.
Economists agree that the 9-9-9 would raise taxes on middle class families, up to twice as much as they pay now. (Partly due to elimination of tax breaks for child care, and partly due to the highly regressive sales tax.) Sure it lets you save money, but it's less money than you save right now. And how many middle class families would really benefit from 0% tax on capital gains? That particular tax cut benefits almost exclusively the wealthy.
Don't get me wrong, I desperately want a simpler tax code, but the facts are that the 9-9-9 plan raises taxes on the middle class and cuts taxes on the wealthy. Isn't that the definition of wealth redistribution that conservatives hate so much?
Economists also agree that middle class families are taking on too much debt and are not saving enough. Oddly enough the Federal government forces us to lend them considerably more money than we owe in order to realize these "tax rates", all while a majority of middle-class Americans are forced to take on debt while they wait to get their tax return back. It's a shaky foundation that becomes the focus and the distraction for all policy decisions; I prefer having a more dependable one.
As for capital gains it is not supposed to be exclusive to the wealthy. Investing is something that anyone can do - and the middle class could especially benefit from. Propping up legislation that demands otherwise only makes global/national bank chains and the rich elite more powerful, because they become the only places to go to for financial assistance.
On October 17 2011 08:05 abominare wrote: I talked about this before, and one of the more amusing poitns of the 9-9-9 plan is the sales tax.
Unlike traditional sales taxes in many states, cain's tax actually hits at all levels of production. Thus making the sales tax multiply ad every additional level in the chain. Such that say on the movement of wheat to bread looks like this.
Farmer sells to wheat supplier at 1.00 +.09 tax for the supplier Supplier sells to bread maker at 1.09+ .0981 tax Supplier sells to grocery for 1.188 + .1069 tax You buy from grocery 1.2949 + .1165 Tax Bread is now a total cost of about 1.4114 and thats considering that no one in this example wanted to do anything but break even, and of course you'll find in the world there are often more than 4 levels of production for many goods, not including how the increases in prices due to the tax would affect the materials the farmer used to get said wheat.
According to his website hes hoping that the reduction in taxes no longer applicable to the industries will compensate and keep prices in line. (of course that line of thought doesn't even make sense in the corp tax world but whatever) Which is a lot more hope that Obama asked for.
You're giving the man too much credit if you think the cost of good will only go up 9%
I agree with you, but I think you are letting production off the hook. The cost of goods shouldn't be something the consumer cares about. If bread costs too much to buy from the store then people won't buy it and will figure out another way to get it. IMO, challenges like these force innovation - if someone really wants to be a bread maker they will find a way to make money doing it.
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote: The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead.
It's hilarious when people make hyperbolic arguments just to make it easy for people to try and discredit their actual point, and yet STILL all they can get in response is an ad hominem.
Coraz must really be onto something.
He's on something. Not onto something. He says we should eliminate the ATF and FDA, the organizations which create and enforce drug laws, and end the CIA, the organization killing Al Qaeda (et al) soldiers who also happen to benefit off the growth and sale of heroin, while simultaneously referring to two serious political candidates as occultists.
That wasn't emotion, that was blunt logic.
FDA is driving up the cost of medicine and healthcare sooo much. ATF picks winners and losers all the time, both are heavily influenced by lobbyists.
The CIA is at the front-edge of our imperialism.
you're right he's not onto anything.
The FDA takes advice straight from the 27 NIH. If you want to dismantle the organizations responsible for driving up health care prices, you're going to have to dismantle the American health care system.
The ATF does more good than bad, but could probably use some new management.
Destroying the front-edge of our imperialism doesn't destroy our imperialism. It just means we have to use the blunt-edge. I'd say a drone strike is a hell of a lot better than a carpet bomb.
On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote: The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific.
I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead.
It's hilarious when people make hyperbolic arguments just to make it easy for people to try and discredit their actual point, and yet STILL all they can get in response is an ad hominem.
Coraz must really be onto something.
He's on something. Not onto something. He says we should eliminate the ATF and FDA, the organizations which create and enforce drug laws, and end the CIA, the organization killing Al Qaeda (et al) soldiers who also happen to benefit off the growth and sale of heroin, while simultaneously referring to two serious political candidates as occultists.
That wasn't emotion, that was blunt logic.
FDA is driving up the cost of medicine and healthcare sooo much. ATF picks winners and losers all the time, both are heavily influenced by lobbyists.
The CIA is at the front-edge of our imperialism.
you're right he's not onto anything.
The FDA takes advice straight from the 27 NIH.
doesn't mean that it's not effected by lobbyists... NIH is a GSE so it's very vulnerable to corruption.
If you want to dismantle the organizations responsible for driving up health care prices, you're going to have to dismantle the American health care system.
FDA is one of the problems.
Destroying the front-edge of our imperialism doesn't destroy our imperialism. It just means we have to use the blunt-edge. I'd say a drone strike is a hell of a lot better than a carpet bomb.
I don't support any plan that dramatically increases taxes on the poor, is at best neutral to the middle class and makes the rich even wealthier. Most of the arguments I see people using in support of 9-9-9 are centered around its "fairness". The problem is that fairness in the rules is dependent on fairness in the starting conditions.
Imagine you were playing monopoly and for the first 5 turns one player cheated by taking 90% of the bank's money and 75% of the properties. Then on turn 6 that player says "ok I am resetting the rules so that they are fair for everybody" and the normal rules came into effect. Would this be fair?
I do not know the complete answer for how to reform the tax code but I would definitely start by recalculating the poverty line (if you wand to lol then look up how our current one is calculated) and exempting all people below it from taxes. Id also spend A LOT of time researching how any changes would affect the middle class (people have made some interesting guesses in this thread already) since the expansion of the middle class should be our priority imo.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
The federal government, and more specifically the Executive Branch, has the most power of all time because of a few things:
1) We started believing in democracy. It was actually a dirty word in this country up until the 1920s. It probably should have stayed that way.
2) The civil rights movement ensured that the bill of rights/other amendments would apply to state governments, and not just the federal government. This was the singular positive change.
3) The Congress delegated its lawmaking responsibilities to the Executive Branch, which delegates those responsibilities to organizations like the FDA and the ATF, which know a lot more about drugs and guns than anyone else in the country. In the end, we get better regulation, but at a higher cost. Overall its a negative change, but the alternative would be even worse.
Number 3 allows the effects of The Iron Triangle, which is abused and misused by lobbyist. Although all lobbyists aren't inherently evil, they're just trying to do whats best for them and their interest group.
So yeah, the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government is a lot stronger than it used to be. But you can't really do anything about it. There is too much being regulated to let the Congress decide on everything. They stall their processes for weeks over single votes. Imagine having to regulate everything. We'd never get a single thing accomplished. Ever.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
Yeah, I was off on the libertarian statement, but I stand by the word radical. The income tax has been progressive for roughly 90 years or so. If you look at our current tax codes and compare them to the 9,9,9 plan you will notice the percentages change A LOT especially for the lowest and highest earners. I'm thinking even die-hard supply side economists would have to agree the changes in his plan would have to be considered quite large (large policy changes=radical). And I didn't even mention the sales tax changes..
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
American economic problems could all more or less be solved by taxing the shit out of our rich. A blanket rate puts a larger burden on the middle and lower classes.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
On October 17 2011 00:02 Zealotdriver wrote: LOL at anyone who thinks the 9-9-9 build could ever work. This crap is a distraction from real solutions to our economic crisis.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%.
On October 16 2011 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote: I've been interested in reforming the tax code for a long time, and recently a lot interest has gone into Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Tax Code.
His proposal is a new 9 percent uniform income tax rate would eliminate all exemptions and deductions, including those for child care, school tuition, health savings accounts and interest on home mortgages. There would also be a 9 percent business tax and a national 9 percent federal sales tax — with no exemptions, even for food and medicine. This would be paid by consumers on top of state and local sales taxes.
The majority of people that benefit from this tax system are people who used to pay the capital gains tax from the sale of stocks and bonds, which would be eliminated. Most of the people who pay this tax are wealthy.
You'll wonder how that can be, when this will slash even the lowest income tax rates, but it is pretty simple. Many Americans depend heavily on deductions and his plan eliminates all exemptions and deductions.
Let me tell you a real life example of what this tax code would do for America. Take my wife and I, we both work between 40 and 50 hours per week and in addition we own a business on the side. Combined we make less than 6 figures, but well over $65,000. So we aren't rich or poor, just middle class.
Last year we paid ~18% of our income (including business income) to the government in taxes, but since we are married and have a mortgage, we get some big deductions that reduces our overall income tax rate to 11%. So, with the 9-9-9 plan we would pay 2% less on our income taxes but get slammed when prices would go up 9% on everything we buy!
In total, we would pay roughly ~$6,000 more per year to the federal government (assuming our spending and income stays constant).
The rich can easily afford to pay for child care, but the average America struggles to pay for it, and the deduction currently for it helps people afford it. Herman Cain eliminates this deduction.
Students (who's family doesn't pay their way) struggle to pay increasing tuition costs (and my wife and I are only a few years removed from school) and the deduction helps people afford it. Herman Cain eliminates this deduction.
For first time home buyers, the mortgage deduction (where you can deduct 100% of your interest) makes home affordable (it did for me we got back over $2,500 per year from it, which is better savings that Herman Cain provides by cutting our taxes). Herman Cain eliminates this deduction too.
A 9% sales taxes increase is a massive increase that obviously is blind to class. Food would cost more for the average America and for Bill Gates. But only one of them has to plan a budget around basic food shopping.
I've always thought a conservative president wouldn't stand for tax increase. But if you are thinking about voting for Herman Cain, think very carefully. You'll lose any deductions you get for child care, school tuition, health savings accounts and interest on home mortgages. And you'll pay 9% more for everything you buy to save a paltry amount on taxes. Do the math for your own individual situation.
Saving 2% on my taxes to pay 9% more for everything I buy is no savings. And all this so people who sell stocks and bonds don't have to pay taxes on them anymore? I can think of two better tax plans for the average America, the one proposed by Mitt Romney, and the one proposed by President Obama.
Paying less in taxes doesn't really solve anything.
The Fair Tax Plan seems like a much more sturdy plan than this one anyway. Allows for those to save what they want without worrying about Tax Penalties. Makes people who currently don't pay taxes Servers, Drug Dealers, Prostitutes actually pay taxes. Much better plan in my opinion though I am no economic expert.
Also on broader view. The current tax system, 9-9-9, Fair Tax whichever one is chosen won't affect a damn thing. In the end it doesn't matter how much money and from where the government gets it they are going to waste it. They are going to fuck up time and time again because of their greed, so instead of fixing a fucked up tax system instead we should focus who runs our country and a better punishment system for those who steal from US citizens.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%.
just wondering, where are you getting these numbers? I have a problem believing this, there was no income tax at all for a very long time in America.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%.
just wondering, where are you getting these numbers? I have a problem believing this, there was no income tax at all for a very long time in America.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%.
just wondering, where are you getting these numbers? I have a problem believing this, there was no income tax at all for a very long time in America.
He is correct. However, it is a bit misleading. One million dollars in 1917 is roughly about 20 million today if you go by Government CPI (though you can easily add a few million to that number as CPI heavily undercounts actual inflation). Furthermore, the lowest possible tax bracket that had taxes was 10,001$. Everyone under that threshold paid zero Federal Income Tax. 10,001$ in 1916 is equivalent today of ~210,000$ (again you can probably hit 400,000$). The vast majority of Americans paid no Federal Income tax until about WWII when withholding was introduced and wages started to rise due to inflation from both WWI & WWII, and the ending of the official Gold Standard (domestically).
Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
It doesn't detract from the fact that you stated if you suggested this stuff in the 1920s or whatever you'd be kicked out as a politician. Tax rates were even in the 90%s in the 1950s.
Just a little ticked, I've spent the entire weekend reading "Individual Income Taxes" for my tax class not going out, so it's a little annoying seeing someone telling me to go "review" when that's all I've been doing like 10+ hours this weekend.
Tax was still 16% at $40,000. Sure, it's less than it comparatively is now when doing adjustments, but I bet back then there weren't a million deductions and exemptions and tax law was pretty simple. The full $40,000 probably qualified as taxable income.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.
On October 17 2011 13:34 gchan wrote: Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
Do I think it has a hoot in a holler chance of happening? I give it less than 1% chance. I find it more likely that in the crisis ahead that communities and States will start to look for ways to get around Washington DC and empower themselves. I think there is a large undertow for folks to feel as if they would be a lot better off without DC. That they can best handle the needs of their community & there is no need to shovel money off to DC where it is then funneled either into a large bureaucratic mess that takes large percentages of money for itself and then gives back to the communities a small percentage of what it originally took, and that it is a parasite which sucks the life out of the rest of the country. If you ever head to Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia they certainly aren't feeling a Depression.
I think the average person understands this, and as it worsens I think there will be more calls for Independence from DC and states will leave the Union. In this scenario I think it is absolutely feasible for certain localities and newly Independent states to create an environment that has the Constitutional restraints and limitations placed upon it which would give back to the people their liberties and labor. Of course, the opposite will happen to as the folks who want more Government involvement on a local level (Such as Euro-State Social Democracy with small States). I think this would be more beneficial to all involved than trying to channel any change through DC which is a cesspool for corruption, indulgence, and a natural hotbed for social strife.
Simply put -- The US is far too large to function as either a Constitutional Republic, Democracy (DD such as Switzerland), or a Social Democracy State. The people of Hawaii have different political bonds than the people of Georgia, and the people of Oregon have different political bonds than the people of Texas. It is best if we let people each decide for themselves locally what sort of Governance they wish to have. Otherwise we get what we have now -- and that certainly is the worst of all.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.
All right. Think of it this way. If your employer came to you and said I'm going to take 5% out of your paycheck every two weeks, but in twelve months you will get a check for the amount of which I took out of your paycheck, does that mean that the wages you earned were not taken from you for twelve months? At which point the employer had free reign to use as he saw fit. You have given him a 0% interest free loan of your money for twelve months of which you had no choice. Your check was reduced by 5%. Now, if you had to pay nothing to your employer as you simply state, then nothing should be taken from your wages.
Inflation given current CPI figures is roughly 4%, however, they do not calculate food or energy costs which are most impacted by inflation (and of course, they exclude many other goods and services). However, if we get to the economic definition, then inflation simply is defined as an increase in the supply of money with no corresponding increase in either demand or in goods and services. The Federal Reserve has loaned out over 16 Trillion in new money over the past few years, and their M2 stocks have ballooned. As we all know it takes time for money to circulate through the economy and for inflation to be fully felt. This is why we laugh at Bernanke when he says he can control inflation by using the interest rate when he sees inflation starting to pick up -- at that point it is too late. Most reputable economists put inflation at around 9 to 10%.
So, you lose 10% of the money you gave to the Federal Government. Now, what about opportunity cost? How much could you have made if you had made us of that money you had taken from you for twelve months?
I could reductio ad absurdum but, I think I got my point across.
On October 17 2011 13:34 gchan wrote: Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
Do I think it has a hoot in a holler chance of happening? I give it less than 1% chance. I find it more likely that in the crisis ahead that communities and States will start to look for ways to get around Washington DC and empower themselves. I think there is a large undertow for folks to feel as if they would be a lot better off without DC. That they can best handle the needs of their community & there is no need to shovel money off to DC where it is then funneled either into a large bureaucratic mess that takes large percentages of money for itself and then gives back to the communities a small percentage of what it originally took, and that it is a parasite which sucks the life out of the rest of the country. If you ever head to Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia they certainly aren't feeling a Depression.
I think the average person understands this, and as it worsens I think there will be more calls for Independence from DC and states will leave the Union. In this scenario I think it is absolutely feasible for certain localities and newly Independent states to create an environment that has the Constitutional restraints and limitations placed upon it which would give back to the people their liberties and labor. Of course, the opposite will happen to as the folks who want more Government involvement on a local level (Such as Euro-State Social Democracy with small States). I think this would be more beneficial to all involved than trying to channel any change through DC which is a cesspool for corruption, indulgence, and a natural hotbed for social strife.
Simply put -- The US is far too large to function as either a Constitutional Republic, Democracy (DD such as Switzerland), or a Social Democracy State. The people of Hawaii have different political bonds than the people of Georgia, and the people of Oregon have different political bonds than the people of Texas. It is best if we let people each decide for themselves locally what sort of Governance they wish to have. Otherwise we get what we have now -- and that certainly is the worst of all.
Such an idealist. Unfortunately, I think that even if the average person understands they are being shafted by the government, the US Constitution does not have in place mechanisms to reverse consolidation of governmental power to the federal level. The last time there was a movement to increase state power (read: the Civil War), the movement was declared an act of treason by the US Government. The odds of success of secession are near zero considering that not only does the average man not know how to properly fight now, but state economies are a not more interrelated. I think what is more likely to happen is that federal policy will be mildly self correcting and the US will seesaw at it's current global position while everybody catches up. Short of a Third World War, the heyday of US power is over. While Americans will by no means be poor, they will neither wield as much influence as they have before. I'm much more of a fatalist and have pretty much decided to let men with power (or delusions) play at their game of politics. I'll stick to my utility maximizing corner of the world, thank you.
Edit: Er, to steer the conversation back to the OP, my point is that 9-9-9 doesn't even matter whether it works or not. While I do believe the US income tax code needs to be revamped, it's not happening in any shape or form. There is simply too much political/legal/corporate inertia. Welcome to mediocrity.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.
All right. Think of it this way. If your employer came to you and said I'm going to take 5% out of your paycheck every two weeks, but in twelve months you will get a check for the amount of which I took out of your paycheck, does that mean that the wages you earned were not taken from you for twelve months? At which point the employer had free reign to use as he saw fit. You have given him a 0% interest free loan of your money for twelve months of which you had no choice. Your check was reduced by 5%. Now, if you had to pay nothing to your employer as you simply state, then nothing should be taken from your wages.
Inflation given current CPI figures is roughly 4%, however, they do not calculate food or energy costs which are most impacted by inflation (and of course, they exclude many other goods and services). However, if we get to the economic definition, then inflation simply is defined as an increase in the supply of money with no corresponding increase in either demand or in goods and services. The Federal Reserve has loaned out over 16 Trillion in new money over the past few years, and their M2 stocks have ballooned. As we all know it takes time for money to circulate through the economy and for inflation to be fully felt. This is why we laugh at Bernanke when he says he can control inflation by using the interest rate when he sees inflation starting to pick up -- at that point it is too late. Most reputable economists put inflation at around 9 to 10%.
So, you lose 10% of the money you gave to the Federal Government. Now, what about opportunity cost? How much could you have made if you had made us of that money you had taken from you for twelve months?
I could reductio ad absurdum but, I think I got my point across.
I know exactly how it works, your explanation was unneeded. I'm fluent enough in the topic. I'm aware you want to minimize your refund as much as possible as it's often alluded to as a 0% interest loan to the government. However, you can limit the amount you actually give the government if you estimate you're hardly going to pay anything, like I do. I don't even have close to 5% taken out of my paycheck.
Apparently inflation has spiked in the past half year, unbeknownst to me. It had been sitting at 1-1.5% for quite the while, so I hope you can see why I said a near negligible amount. I mean, for the majority of 2009 we even had deflation. Can you point me to your sources of "most reputable economists." As stated, I'm not currently up to date with inflation rates apparently, so I'd like to see where you're getting your information from.
I'm also not sure how you can say using interest rates still wouldn't help counteract the effects, even if they're felt later, unless you're merely meaning that it's "not enough" to control because it comes to late, or something along those regards.
On October 17 2011 13:34 gchan wrote: Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
Do I think it has a hoot in a holler chance of happening? I give it less than 1% chance. I find it more likely that in the crisis ahead that communities and States will start to look for ways to get around Washington DC and empower themselves. I think there is a large undertow for folks to feel as if they would be a lot better off without DC. That they can best handle the needs of their community & there is no need to shovel money off to DC where it is then funneled either into a large bureaucratic mess that takes large percentages of money for itself and then gives back to the communities a small percentage of what it originally took, and that it is a parasite which sucks the life out of the rest of the country. If you ever head to Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia they certainly aren't feeling a Depression.
I think the average person understands this, and as it worsens I think there will be more calls for Independence from DC and states will leave the Union. In this scenario I think it is absolutely feasible for certain localities and newly Independent states to create an environment that has the Constitutional restraints and limitations placed upon it which would give back to the people their liberties and labor. Of course, the opposite will happen to as the folks who want more Government involvement on a local level (Such as Euro-State Social Democracy with small States). I think this would be more beneficial to all involved than trying to channel any change through DC which is a cesspool for corruption, indulgence, and a natural hotbed for social strife.
Simply put -- The US is far too large to function as either a Constitutional Republic, Democracy (DD such as Switzerland), or a Social Democracy State. The people of Hawaii have different political bonds than the people of Georgia, and the people of Oregon have different political bonds than the people of Texas. It is best if we let people each decide for themselves locally what sort of Governance they wish to have. Otherwise we get what we have now -- and that certainly is the worst of all.
Such an idealist. Unfortunately, I think that even if the average person understands they are being shafted by the government, the US Constitution does not have in place mechanisms to reverse consolidation of governmental power to the federal level. The last time there was a movement to increase state power (read: the Civil War), the movement was declared an act of treason by the US Government. The odds of success of secession are near zero considering that not only does the average man not know how to properly fight now, but state economies are a not more interrelated. I think what is more likely to happen is that federal policy will be mildly self correcting and the US will seesaw at it's current global position while everybody catches up. Short of a Third World War, the heyday of US power is over. While Americans will by no means be poor, they will neither wield as much influence as they have before. I'm much more of a fatalist and have pretty much decided to let men with power (or delusions) play at their game of politics. I'll stick to my utility maximizing corner of the world, thank you.
An idealist..Yes, I suppose so. The future is as yet unwritten, and those who shape the future are often the true believers. Whether that is Lenin & Trotsky on the other end of the spectrum, or Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry on the opposite end. Of course the events that lead to such change are few and far between, I feel that given the current condition and state of being in both the world today, and in this country, it is at one of those crossroads. The system is collapsing and is simply unsustainable. I do not have much faith that anything will change in DC (though I work to try and limit the damage as much as possible right now, just like the Revolutionaries petitioned the King consistently before coming to the final conclusion), so I see the trajectory that we are on. I've always been an ardent advocate of self-Government & localism. Never understood Nationalist proclivities, nor the incessant desire to have a country the size of the US be uniform or homogenuous. Simply not possible. From my readings of the Anti-Federalist papers, they understood this fact too.
As far as maximizing ones utility, I certainly do that too. No one says you cannot profit from your knowledge of the situation and at the same time work to correct the course.
When the time comes for states and localities to declare their Independence from, DC it'll be too late for them to do anything, just like when the USSR collapsed. The US is bankrupt -- eventually the reality will set in. Furthermore, being a characteristic of a State of course they view anyone choosing to not follow their edicts as treasonous since they are of course the monopolist institution in the territory. Given that the US cannot even win in Afghanistan, or Iraq, I think states that are much more wealthy & prosperous have a much better chance than even those folks. The only reason the North won the 'Civil War' was because of Robert E. Lee officially surrendered. The South could have fought a guerilla war for decades and would have eventually won. The same thing you saw in Vietnam & Afghanistan.
Though you know what they say -- when you have nothing left to lose, you have everything to gain.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.
All right. Think of it this way. If your employer came to you and said I'm going to take 5% out of your paycheck every two weeks, but in twelve months you will get a check for the amount of which I took out of your paycheck, does that mean that the wages you earned were not taken from you for twelve months? At which point the employer had free reign to use as he saw fit. You have given him a 0% interest free loan of your money for twelve months of which you had no choice. Your check was reduced by 5%. Now, if you had to pay nothing to your employer as you simply state, then nothing should be taken from your wages.
Inflation given current CPI figures is roughly 4%, however, they do not calculate food or energy costs which are most impacted by inflation (and of course, they exclude many other goods and services). However, if we get to the economic definition, then inflation simply is defined as an increase in the supply of money with no corresponding increase in either demand or in goods and services. The Federal Reserve has loaned out over 16 Trillion in new money over the past few years, and their M2 stocks have ballooned. As we all know it takes time for money to circulate through the economy and for inflation to be fully felt. This is why we laugh at Bernanke when he says he can control inflation by using the interest rate when he sees inflation starting to pick up -- at that point it is too late. Most reputable economists put inflation at around 9 to 10%.
So, you lose 10% of the money you gave to the Federal Government. Now, what about opportunity cost? How much could you have made if you had made us of that money you had taken from you for twelve months?
I could reductio ad absurdum but, I think I got my point across.
I know exactly how it works, your explanation was unneeded. I'm fluent enough in the topic. I'm aware you want to minimize your refund as much as possible as it's often alluded to as a 0% interest loan to the government. However, you can limit the amount you actually give the government if you estimate you're hardly going to pay anything, like I do. I don't even have close to 5% taken out of my paycheck.
Apparently inflation has spiked in the past half year, unbeknownst to me. It had been sitting at 1-1.5% for quite the while, so I hope you can see why I said a near negligible amount. I mean, for the majority of 2009 we even had deflation. Can you point me to your sources of "most reputable economists." As stated, I'm not currently up to date with inflation rates apparently, so I'd like to see where you're getting your information from.
I'm also not sure how you can say using interest rates still wouldn't help counteract the effects, even if they're felt later, unless you're merely meaning that it's "not enough" to control because it comes to late, or something along those regards.
Here you can see an increaes of 14.7%. Similarly, I find it helpful to keep a yearly track of annual expenses. It is usually a good indicator of the purchasing power of your money and its falling or rising value.
PS: Bernanke says that inflation is not something to worry about because he can just raise interest rates. This belays the point -- inflation doesn't take place until the money circulates through the economy which means in order to fight inflation with interest rates, it must have all ready occurred. This is dangerous because Bernanke believes he can print up all the money he wants to and then when he sees the inflation he can use interest rates, but at that point it is too late because the money is all ready in the economy and has circulated so prices reflect the value of the money -- supply of the money. Unless Bernanke is literally going to gobble up all the money has printed and burn it, it is too late. This is why Bernanke is so dangerous. Sure, you can cull inflation by raising interest rates to astronomically high levels, but that would destroy the economy.
Can you imagine the US Government having to pay 15% on its treasuries/debt? The debt payment alone would immediately show how bankrupt the USG is and how insolvent and bankrupt the banks are. Really, unless the spending gets dramatically reduced, Bernanke is in a terrible position. He has to monetize the debt, and by doing so inflates the currency away to nothing. This means eventually he will have to raise rates and the whole house of cards will collapse. Inflation is going to get a lot worse, especially once the dollars overseas start flooding back home. Eventually those countries will want to spend their dollars before they become worthless, and when that happens expect to see a dramatic and quick inflation rise. At that point there is nothing Bernanke can do.
As a licensed mortgage broker in Canada, the fact that laypeople (ie not businesses) can deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes in the USA is absolutely fucking bonkers. WTF were they thinking when they came up with that one.
On October 17 2011 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote: Why 9-9-9?
Why not 8-8-8 or 10-10-10?
That is the single scariest part of this plan... changing a tax code/system in the best of times/no wars would be a serious challenge. The implication a 9's is that rich pay less, poor pay more. The capital gains tax is gravy. Anyone who believes that it will stay at 9, even thru his first term...
On October 17 2011 13:34 gchan wrote: Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
Do I think it has a hoot in a holler chance of happening? I give it less than 1% chance. I find it more likely that in the crisis ahead that communities and States will start to look for ways to get around Washington DC and empower themselves. I think there is a large undertow for folks to feel as if they would be a lot better off without DC. That they can best handle the needs of their community & there is no need to shovel money off to DC where it is then funneled either into a large bureaucratic mess that takes large percentages of money for itself and then gives back to the communities a small percentage of what it originally took, and that it is a parasite which sucks the life out of the rest of the country. If you ever head to Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia they certainly aren't feeling a Depression.
I think the average person understands this, and as it worsens I think there will be more calls for Independence from DC and states will leave the Union. In this scenario I think it is absolutely feasible for certain localities and newly Independent states to create an environment that has the Constitutional restraints and limitations placed upon it which would give back to the people their liberties and labor. Of course, the opposite will happen to as the folks who want more Government involvement on a local level (Such as Euro-State Social Democracy with small States). I think this would be more beneficial to all involved than trying to channel any change through DC which is a cesspool for corruption, indulgence, and a natural hotbed for social strife.
Simply put -- The US is far too large to function as either a Constitutional Republic, Democracy (DD such as Switzerland), or a Social Democracy State. The people of Hawaii have different political bonds than the people of Georgia, and the people of Oregon have different political bonds than the people of Texas. It is best if we let people each decide for themselves locally what sort of Governance they wish to have. Otherwise we get what we have now -- and that certainly is the worst of all.
Such an idealist. Unfortunately, I think that even if the average person understands they are being shafted by the government, the US Constitution does not have in place mechanisms to reverse consolidation of governmental power to the federal level. The last time there was a movement to increase state power (read: the Civil War), the movement was declared an act of treason by the US Government. The odds of success of secession are near zero considering that not only does the average man not know how to properly fight now, but state economies are a not more interrelated. I think what is more likely to happen is that federal policy will be mildly self correcting and the US will seesaw at it's current global position while everybody catches up. Short of a Third World War, the heyday of US power is over. While Americans will by no means be poor, they will neither wield as much influence as they have before. I'm much more of a fatalist and have pretty much decided to let men with power (or delusions) play at their game of politics. I'll stick to my utility maximizing corner of the world, thank you.
An idealist..Yes, I suppose so. The future is as yet unwritten, and those who shape the future are often the true believers. Whether that is Lenin & Trotsky on the other end of the spectrum, or Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry on the opposite end. Of course the events that lead to such change are few and far between, I feel that given the current condition and state of being in both the world today, and in this country, it is at one of those crossroads. The system is collapsing and is simply unsustainable. I do not have much faith that anything will change in DC (though I work to try and limit the damage as much as possible right now, just like the Revolutionaries petitioned the King consistently before coming to the final conclusion), so I see the trajectory that we are on. I've always been an ardent advocate of self-Government & localism. Never understood Nationalist proclivities, nor the incessant desire to have a country the size of the US be uniform or homogenuous. Simply not possible. From my readings of the Anti-Federalist papers, they understood this fact too.
As far as maximizing ones utility, I certainly do that too. No one says you cannot profit from your knowledge of the situation and at the same time work to correct the course.
When the time comes for states and localities to declare their Independence from, DC it'll be too late for them to do anything, just like when the USSR collapsed. The US is bankrupt -- eventually the reality will set in. Furthermore, being a characteristic of a State of course they view anyone choosing to not follow their edicts as treasonous since they are of course the monopolist institution in the territory. Given that the US cannot even win in Afghanistan, or Iraq, I think states that are much more wealthy & prosperous have a much better chance than even those folks. The only reason the North won the 'Civil War' was because of Robert E. Lee officially surrendered. The South could have fought a guerilla war for decades and would have eventually won. The same thing you saw in Vietnam & Afghanistan.
Though you know what they say -- when you have nothing left to lose, you have everything to gain.
That's what I love about the 9-9-9 plan - it's an indirect swing of power to the states. Once the Federal Income Tax becomes low enough, States can play with their tax rates to provide diversity and choices for citizens - just like municipalities currently do.
As States do this, it will become increasingly harder for the Federal government to ever be able to raise any of their taxes - party allegiance won't mean as much as state allegiance when it comes to taxes; if someone wants lower taxes or higher public assistance they can move to a state that offers this and still have all that America offers.
The sheer size of the current federal income tax ensures that States will have to keep their taxes low and relying on the Federal Government's assistance to compete for businesses and homeowners.
On October 17 2011 22:32 bonifaceviii wrote: As a licensed mortgage broker in Canada, the fact that laypeople (ie not businesses) can deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes in the USA is absolutely fucking bonkers. WTF were they thinking when they came up with that one.
In theory, it helps the housing markets and makes home ownership easier on lower income families. In reality, I'm not convinced. It actually stems from a time when all consumer debt was tax deductible. It's also one of the easiest things to understand in our current tax code (which is way, way out of control.)
That the National Association of Realtors is one of the biggest lobbyist groups arguing against the removal of the deduction really points towards it being a subsidy of the housing industry.
While 9-9-9 may not be the actual answer, simplifying the tax code and broadening the tax base is something that needs to happen. The Simpson=Bowles commission had tax reform, including eliminating (if I remember correctly) all tax credits as a major point of the plan. Our tax code has been used so much to decide what is right and wrong, and which industries should get support and those that should not that it hurts the business climate in the United States more than it helps.
On October 17 2011 00:02 ScrubS wrote: My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).
I pay 51% :-D
My last earned "krone" (danish currency) is taxed by 68% (60% top tax + 8%)
However, we do have a max. which is 51% of your total income.. Thank god for that at least
What is wrong, exactly, with a tax system that is not progressive (which is what people mean when they says this is regressive, its not like the first 10k is taxed at a higher rate)?
The only thing that I can see that is bad about economic stratification is that is leads to civil unrest and revolution, but it seems like greater inequality is better for the economy (because smarter people make smarter investments theoretically) so long as revolutionary tendencies don't take over.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.
All right. Think of it this way. If your employer came to you and said I'm going to take 5% out of your paycheck every two weeks, but in twelve months you will get a check for the amount of which I took out of your paycheck, does that mean that the wages you earned were not taken from you for twelve months? At which point the employer had free reign to use as he saw fit. You have given him a 0% interest free loan of your money for twelve months of which you had no choice. Your check was reduced by 5%. Now, if you had to pay nothing to your employer as you simply state, then nothing should be taken from your wages.
Inflation given current CPI figures is roughly 4%, however, they do not calculate food or energy costs which are most impacted by inflation (and of course, they exclude many other goods and services). However, if we get to the economic definition, then inflation simply is defined as an increase in the supply of money with no corresponding increase in either demand or in goods and services. The Federal Reserve has loaned out over 16 Trillion in new money over the past few years, and their M2 stocks have ballooned. As we all know it takes time for money to circulate through the economy and for inflation to be fully felt. This is why we laugh at Bernanke when he says he can control inflation by using the interest rate when he sees inflation starting to pick up -- at that point it is too late. Most reputable economists put inflation at around 9 to 10%.
So, you lose 10% of the money you gave to the Federal Government. Now, what about opportunity cost? How much could you have made if you had made us of that money you had taken from you for twelve months?
I could reductio ad absurdum but, I think I got my point across.
I know exactly how it works, your explanation was unneeded. I'm fluent enough in the topic. I'm aware you want to minimize your refund as much as possible as it's often alluded to as a 0% interest loan to the government. However, you can limit the amount you actually give the government if you estimate you're hardly going to pay anything, like I do. I don't even have close to 5% taken out of my paycheck.
Apparently inflation has spiked in the past half year, unbeknownst to me. It had been sitting at 1-1.5% for quite the while, so I hope you can see why I said a near negligible amount. I mean, for the majority of 2009 we even had deflation. Can you point me to your sources of "most reputable economists." As stated, I'm not currently up to date with inflation rates apparently, so I'd like to see where you're getting your information from.
I'm also not sure how you can say using interest rates still wouldn't help counteract the effects, even if they're felt later, unless you're merely meaning that it's "not enough" to control because it comes to late, or something along those regards.
Here you can see an increaes of 14.7%. Similarly, I find it helpful to keep a yearly track of annual expenses. It is usually a good indicator of the purchasing power of your money and its falling or rising value.
PS: Bernanke says that inflation is not something to worry about because he can just raise interest rates. This belays the point -- inflation doesn't take place until the money circulates through the economy which means in order to fight inflation with interest rates, it must have all ready occurred. This is dangerous because Bernanke believes he can print up all the money he wants to and then when he sees the inflation he can use interest rates, but at that point it is too late because the money is all ready in the economy and has circulated so prices reflect the value of the money -- supply of the money. Unless Bernanke is literally going to gobble up all the money has printed and burn it, it is too late. This is why Bernanke is so dangerous. Sure, you can cull inflation by raising interest rates to astronomically high levels, but that would destroy the economy.
Can you imagine the US Government having to pay 15% on its treasuries/debt? The debt payment alone would immediately show how bankrupt the USG is and how insolvent and bankrupt the banks are. Really, unless the spending gets dramatically reduced, Bernanke is in a terrible position. He has to monetize the debt, and by doing so inflates the currency away to nothing. This means eventually he will have to raise rates and the whole house of cards will collapse. Inflation is going to get a lot worse, especially once the dollars overseas start flooding back home. Eventually those countries will want to spend their dollars before they become worthless, and when that happens expect to see a dramatic and quick inflation rise. At that point there is nothing Bernanke can do.
Just as I thought, more Austrian nonsense. First, the CPI DOES take food prices into consideration, but its post production goods. If wheat goes to $1000000, but bread still costs the same at WalMart, then there is no percieved inflation in the system. Second, money doesn't just start being spent. If there's a lot of USD held up somewhere, they're not suddenly going to flood the markets with them. Sure, there may be a temporary rise in inflation, but the spook caused by raising interest rates again will slow that further. At worst, we'll oscillate for a decade between high and low interest rates.
On October 18 2011 00:26 cLutZ wrote: What is wrong, exactly, with a tax system that is not progressive (which is what people mean when they says this is regressive, its not like the first 10k is taxed at a higher rate)?
There is a fixed cost to living. You need to buy food and shelter. In a first world economy, you probably need a car. These aren't trivial expenses. Therefore, the more money you make, the less these fixed costs contribute to your total expenses. It's one of the reasons wealth tends to accumulate in the already wealthy. A progressive tax system is required to prevent the upward accumulation of wealth and the destruction of the middle class.
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote: Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
You've got a really bizarre definition of 'just fine', considering the difference in tariff costs (south being dependent on export, north being dependent on import) was a significant cause of a lot of the political and social strife leading up to the civil war. Income tax was deemed a better alternative at the time, whereby each would pay a fair share. It's thanks to income tax that the country has pretty much eradicated the idea of a North and a South (no reason to complain about the other anymore!). Not to mention that the entire economy was completely dependent on the price of gold, which flung about wildly. Look at the price of gold over the last decade alone and tell me you want a currency dependent on that. There were boom and bust cycles over the 1800s on the scale of months, let alone years.
Not that I support the trends of government's growth, but let's be realistic about what kind of systems are actually sustainable, by learning from our history.
Politicians love to use "scary" terms to shut down ideas they don't like, and they've been doing it for a long time. To be honest, I've long advocated for a solid no-deduction tax, but 9% is NOT high enough. What people are failing to realize, is the biggest benefit of all is THE REMOVAL OF TAX SHELTERS, which is what the loopholes/deductions allow rich people to do. Yeah, we pay a bit more or less, but the rich end up paying out the ass, because they can no longer hide behind their tax exemptions and deductions.
On October 20 2011 05:07 forgotten0ne wrote: But taxes are socialism!!! /sarcasm
Politicians love to use "scary" terms to shut down ideas they don't like, and they've been doing it for a long time. To be honest, I've long advocated for a solid no-deduction tax, but 9% is NOT high enough. What people are failing to realize, is the biggest benefit of all is THE REMOVAL OF TAX SHELTERS, which is what the loopholes/deductions allow rich people to do. Yeah, we pay a bit more or less, but the rich end up paying out the ass, because they can no longer hide behind their tax exemptions and deductions.
Problem isn't that we aren't taxing enough. Even if you taxed every corporation to its knees so that they had not even a penny to themselves any more, it still wouldn't fix the budget problem. The problem is spending, by a huge margin.
On October 18 2011 00:26 cLutZ wrote: What is wrong, exactly, with a tax system that is not progressive (which is what people mean when they says this is regressive, its not like the first 10k is taxed at a higher rate)?
The only thing that I can see that is bad about economic stratification is that is leads to civil unrest and revolution, but it seems like greater inequality is better for the economy (because smarter people make smarter investments theoretically) so long as revolutionary tendencies don't take over.
A flat sales tax is regressive, as poor people spend more of their income. So it affects poor more than rich. That's what regressive means. The 9% income tax is neither regressive nor progressive. It's the 9% sales tax that is regressive.
I think people don't seem to realize that a 9% federal sales tax is actually pretty crazy. It's ridiculous. The middle and lower classes are hurting enough already. Not to mention the double sales tax situation that a lot of states would have.
Okay after all warren buffet say tax the rich, america's going on to implement a regressive tax that hurts the lower bracket of incomer earners... The only reason i can think of them not implementing progressive taxation is the backlash from the rich.
The 9-9-9 tax plan isn't egalitarian, no matter what Herman Cain says in debates. The current US tax code is progressive in nature and no flat tax rate can achieve that. That said, the top tax rate has been 70%+ in the period 1936 to 1980 and I'd say the rich people got rich just as actively back then as they are under a 35% tax rate.
However, the true culprit to inequality isn't a bad tax code. It's structural problems in the economy that lead to Wall Street getting richer and richer, making millions with risky methods while Main Street earnings remain relatively unchanged. Policymakers should aim to equalise pay packets, not just the tax code. Of course, if those policymakers dare to ire the rich at all.
In Israel almost everyone that's middle class+ pays a bit more than 50% income tax to the government. So as I see it your situation (~10%) is far more favorable.
Here's an interesting perspective. I think a sales tax is superior to an income tax but Herman Cain plan has some problems. I'm also concerned about when 9-9-9 becomes 11-11-11 then 15-15-15.
On October 24 2011 19:46 Mobius_1 wrote: The 9-9-9 tax plan isn't egalitarian, no matter what Herman Cain says in debates. The current US tax code is progressive in nature and no flat tax rate can achieve that. That said, the top tax rate has been 70%+ in the period 1936 to 1980 and I'd say the rich people got rich just as actively back then as they are under a 35% tax rate.
The problem is the loopholes and corporate wellfare. If the rich at any point actually DID pay 70% of all their income, that'd be absolutely horrible.
However, the true culprit to inequality isn't a bad tax code. It's structural problems in the economy that lead to Wall Street getting richer and richer, making millions with risky methods while Main Street earnings remain relatively unchanged. Policymakers should aim to equalise pay packets, not just the tax code. Of course, if those policymakers dare to ire the rich at all.
equalize pay brackets what? Where's the incentive to excell then?
On October 24 2011 19:43 aFganFlyTrap wrote: hermain caines ridiculous 999 tax doesnt even warrant a thread and hes just in this to make money and build his brand.
it's worth it just to prove how stupid it is and kill him before he gets any steam heading into primaries.
Wasn't another major complaint, besides the ones outlined in the op, that this plan would also result in a major shortfall as far as what the fed govt collects year to year?? so not only would the low-middle class residents get a huge hike, but the federal government would also have to slash a whole bunch of shit out of the budget or go further into debt hell??
i mean, this country really, really needs to get spending under control, but trying the pull the table cloth out from everything in the budget and just keeping what doesnt break from the shortfall isn't the way to do it.
The other major thing from what I've been reading is that the reduced rate for corps is expected to be made up in business investments and payroll increases. This thing entirely hinges on trickle down, which sure as shit isn't gonna happen in the midst of a recession. Businesses will hoard that shit until they're in the clear, and even then, it's not gonna happen to the extent that anticipated by this plan
On October 17 2011 07:41 Navillus wrote: I would never ever want an economics plan to be passed when one of the main merits of the plan is that it's easy to remember because it arbitrarily uses to same number for 3 largely unrelated taxes.
This x 1 billion. I don't think we should be structuring our entire tax code around an idea that was chosen primarily because it fits neatly in a sound bite and caters to the simple minded. Tax code simplicity is overrated. Give me an economically correct tax code over an arbitrary simple one any day.
On October 24 2011 20:20 Zokkar wrote: In Israel almost everyone that's middle class+ pays a bit more than 50% income tax to the government. So as I see it your situation (~10%) is far more favorable.
I'm sure if you read even the first page of this thread or had access to Wikipedia for more than 2 minutes you would not have posted something so incredibly stupid.
On October 24 2011 19:46 Mobius_1 wrote: The 9-9-9 tax plan isn't egalitarian, no matter what Herman Cain says in debates. The current US tax code is progressive in nature and no flat tax rate can achieve that. That said, the top tax rate has been 70%+ in the period 1936 to 1980 and I'd say the rich people got rich just as actively back then as they are under a 35% tax rate.
The problem is the loopholes and corporate wellfare. If the rich at any point actually DID pay 70% of all their income, that'd be absolutely horrible.
However, the true culprit to inequality isn't a bad tax code. It's structural problems in the economy that lead to Wall Street getting richer and richer, making millions with risky methods while Main Street earnings remain relatively unchanged. Policymakers should aim to equalise pay packets, not just the tax code. Of course, if those policymakers dare to ire the rich at all.
equalize pay brackets what? Where's the incentive to excell then?
1, The rich paying 70% of all their incomes will not cripple the economy. They will not lose all their incentive to work and will not move all their assets abroad just because of high tax rate, the USA still holds a premier spot as the largest and most active economy in the world (even in this climate). A low Capital Gains tax rate will help facilitate investment and also encourage performance-based compensation for executives, giving them incentive to perform well. But an absolute 0% as suggested by Cain may not be the optimal, I feel it is an opportunity to decrease the government deficit and help US finances, and a low rate wouldn't harm worthwhile investment.
2, Not eliminating incentives, but restructuring compensation in a way that adjusts for risk and value-add. One reason for the rise in the discrepancy between WS and MS incomes is the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act which meant WS could speculate with your savings, and partake in deals whose upsides meant bonuses while downsides meant shareholders taking the hit (but never for too long). This is mostly the failure of the Federal regulators as well as the Boards of the firms to properly oversee their firms and keep risk in check. In the end, the size of the large firms meant orderly bankruptcies were impossible and MS paid a lot of the bill, too. I would characterise the rise of giant financial entities and lack of oversight as structural problems, leading to WS ditching MS in their unregulated pursuit of profits (which is natural and to be encouraged, nothing wrong with greed, we are all better because of it, as long as it is kept in check). The implementation will of course be very difficult and will require a concerted joint effort by various countries, regulators and banks themselves, otherwise nothing will change because that age-old excuse of "we need the big salaries to keep the best talent".
On October 17 2011 00:02 ScrubS wrote: My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).
But you have to appreciate that the government of the netherlands takes a more active role in the countries day to day running than the US government. Afaik, there is a strong sense of the right to choose and competition governing the market as opposed to government regulation. For instance, your 40% tax rate helps fund your public health system and operate any state owned enterprises you may have. Despite a move to change this in the US, healthcare is still heavily reliant on insurance to cover expenses and whatnot. So the money the US saves on taxes theoretically should be paid back in the form of things that are covered by the government.
Basically, the country has a different ethos towards these things than EU/other parts of the world. It's not really a matter of getting over yourself, rather the fact that one must appreciate the underlying differences between our cultures. Through doing that you will see why things like an 18% tax rate is accepted in the US and why any increases are frowned upon more so than in our countries.
While this is true to an extent, I'm under the opinion that less government is better in America. This country was founded upon freedom and freedom to spend the money you make is one of those freedoms. This country operated under no tax code for a while.
While the op makes mention of the low class, I'm quick to remind him that Cain has repeatedly stated that the low class would pay no income taxes at all. After all, 9% of a little income is just a blip on the government's radar.
The primary emphasis behind this plan is to reduce the government's role while maintaining a fair federal corporate tax rate to keep companies here rather than relocating their HQ. After all, 9% of a corporate budget is much better than no taxes at all from a multi-million or billion dollar company. The current corporate tax rate is absurd, and countries that taxed corporations and the rich have experienced a disaster of them just flat out moving out of the country.
60 minutes did a special not long ago showing how many businesses have just relocated their HQ to Switzerland to avoid the 35% rate here.
You hear guys like Warren Buffet saying, "The rich should pay more," but I don't see Mr. Buffet offering his wealth up to the government.
While saying this however, I do agree there is a need for a standardized healthcare system or at least the federal option we have now. While it won't fix everything, it will guarantee everyone has a right to healthcare, which is a basic freedom I think everyone deserves.
On October 20 2011 05:11 MangoTango wrote: A flat sales tax is a regressive tax.
Because of that reason, I only ever seen talk about a high sales tax together with some kind of base income for every citizen. Those models have 0 % income tax, seemingly ridiculously high sales tax, like 100 %, and then flat base income of for example $1500 for adults and $750 for children (and government bureaucracy, regulations like minimum wage, and all social security measures are cut).
The problem with fixing the tax code is that you need to leave in all the dodges and deductions for the average citizen while eliminating the ones being abused by the absurdly wealthy.
EPT
Many people in the EU feel that the US citizens are sitting on a timebomb with the low taxes, high personal debts, low house prices and HUGE government debt (which US government increases again and again). Perhaps more taxes so government debt may be decreased is a good idea (or at least, reduced debt increment). Consider seeing more taxes as an investment in not having your country forfeit 
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oHCcm9FfPNo/TWea09x5dPI/AAAAAAAAVP0/2gOvwcnz-jw/s1600/MINT-TAXES-R4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GEBW0.png)
![[image loading]](http://c1ecolocalizercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/04/wealthgapchart1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/Average-tax-change-from-9-9-9-plan-10-18-2011-OPT.jpg)
