COMMENTS

  • jrhode2873

    Some conservatives that I respect really are embarrassing themselves with their flawed logic about 999. This is another example. Let me ask you a couple of questions Neil:

    1. Where in your video is there anything about all of the taxes that will be eliminated by 999? Taxes that Congress uses right now to raise and lower to manipulate the public? Payroll Taxes, Capital Gains Taxes, the Death Tax, AMT, and the double taxation of dividends?

    2. All of us are paying hidden sales taxes in the price of goods right now because of the high corporate taxes that are passed down to consumers. 999 gets rid of the hidden taxes and makes them visible through the 9% corporate tax and 9% sales tax. In many cases, the price of goods will go down not up. What say you?

    3. With the tax code becoming more simplified and transparent how is the 999 environment gonna be more conducive to politicians raising taxes than the current environment? Please answer this question.

    4. What do you say about Art Laffer (one of Reagan’s top economic advisors) whole-heartedly embracing it? What about Club For Growth embracing it?

    With all due respect Neil, your video is nothing more than demgoguery and represents a line of thought coming from conservatives that isn’t well thought out at all.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Herman Cain wants to raise my taxes.

    I won’t give in without a fight.

    Game on, buddy.

  • jrhode2873

    And neither does Herman Cain. I want you to honestly evaluate the entirety of 999 and not just demagogue the national sales tax. How about providing more weight to your argument by answering my questions? Can you do that?

  • jrhode2873

    See my response below…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m not debating you. I opposing you and your new tax scheme.

    Keep your hands off my money, Herman Cain!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Some of us aren’t wealthy CEOs and can’t afford a massive sales tax hike.

  • jrhode2873

    “I’m not debating you.”

    Thanks for making my point. The truth is you can’t debate me because your position is weak.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The GOP Tax Set wants to take my money. You want to take my money.

    I’m not going to stop. I’m going to hammer Herman “Read my lips” Cain for this nonstop.

  • jrhode2873

    Hammer away Neil. But in my opinion you are embarrassing yourself. I’ve read lots of your political analysis over the years and its been pretty good for the most part. You can do much better than this. Your analysis on 999 sounds like an Obama 2012 bumper sticker. At the very least, you could do some thorough analysis on the plan as a whole and explain why you don’t like it point-by-point instead of this fixation on the national sales tax. Here’s a little advice: when you go to the store to buy something today, remember you are ALREADY paying a lot of hidden sales taxes.

  • Scope

    or you have decided for wahtever reason to participate in the same double talk Cain has been doing in trying to defend his disastrous 999 plan.

    Cain’s so-called “hidden” taxes that he claims everyone is currently paying have nothing to do with the manufacturing and sale of goods to consumers. It is a bogus, and very misleading argument.

    Capital gains taxes are paid on the profit from the sale of things such as real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. If I own a property, and I bought it for $100,000., and I sell it now for $150,000., I owe capital gains taxes on the $50,000 profit I made from that sale.
    If I own stocks that I paid $50,000. to purchase, and I sell them today for $75,000., I pay capital gains taxes on the $25,000. profit I made from that sale. If I made a profit on the sale of a property, and I reinvest those monies into another property, I don’t pay capital gains taxes now. How in the hel1 does that have anything to do with a bakery baking loaves of bread, and then selling them to a grocery store for a small profit per loaf? Under the current tax code, the bakery can purchase their flour, sugar, butter, and whatever it takes to make that loaf of bread tax free, with a Tax exemption certificate. The baker currently does not pay taxes on the goods required to produce their product, but, with the Cain plan, now every item required to produce that loaf of bread will be taxable, which will increase the cost of a loaf of bread. What ever does that have to do with a “hidden” capital gains tax, or the death tax. Death taxes are paid on the value of someone’s estate when they croak, with an exemption for the first few hundred thousand dollars.

    Now, if I am the owner of a major bakery, and I have 5 bakery shops that sell my product, and I decide to close down and sell one of those shops, and I sell the property for $25,000 more than I originally paid for it, with Cain’s plan, I will no longer owe the capital gains tax on that $25,000. profit, which has absolutely nothing to do with the manufacture and sale of my bakery products. I will now be required to pay taxes on every item, considered cost of goods sold, that I didn’t have to pay pre-999. I promise those tax increases will be passed along by an increase in cost of every item I sell.

    Go back and consider the items that are required to make flour. The flour maker will be paying taxes for every item required to produce a bag of flour. The same applies for the sugar manufacturer, the butter manufacturer and everyone who produces every and any product.

    Cain is falsely and dangerously using his “double speak” in saying that there are currently “hidden” taxes being paid now by business owners, and then naming taxes that have little, to nothing, to do with producing items for sale.

    If I am a senior, and I am surviving on SS only, I now have an additional 9% national sales tax, added to my state sales tax rate, on every product I buy, from any store, other than Goodwill or a consignment shop. Last I checked you can’t buy used medications or food.

    Yesterday when Cain was talking with David Gregory, Gregory asked him about the increased costs for the elderly. Cain talked as though every senior citizen was wealthy, was collecting dividends, or had major capital gains income. He completely ignored the fact that there are many many elderly that are barely making ends meet. It was though he assumed that every senior was rich.

    The current tax code must be reformed, changed, or thrown out and started over, however, to make a change from one faulty system to another faulty system is not a worthy goal, and should be shunned in full. I am quite certain that there are highly qualified economists that can simplify the tax system without creating additional tax revenue streams, and therefore exchanging one nightmare for another.

    Please stop with the Laffer and Club for Growth support memes. There have always been some willing to give up any credibility they may have earned in order to push an agenda, whatever it is.

  • jrhode2873

    I would like to commend you for at least trying to debate the plan as a whole.

    I will grant you that the bread example may not be the best example of hidden sales taxes because of the tax exemptions that might exist for items like bread. However, the rest of your logic is unconvincing.

    First of all, you are attempting to muddy the waters by mixing the capital gains taxes and death taxes with the hidden taxes argument. And the bottom line is that under 999, regardless of the debate about hidden taxes, those two particular taxes will be ELIMINATED. They’re not even in the discussion anymore under 999.

    Second of all, as far as the hidden taxes debate, you cannot possibly be arguing that companies don’t pass down corporate taxes to consumers? Are you seriously arguing that point? Because if you are, you could not be any more wrong. Some of those corporate tax rates are enormous, as high as 35% in some cases. Those taxes are passed down to consumers when they purchase most products in the market including televisions, cars, clothes, items to build houses, etc. And usually the only way to get out of those corporate taxes is to get a corporate welfare exemption from the government which politicians use to pick winners and losers in the economy. There is nothing conservative about that at all.

    999 brings the taxes on goods out into the open for all to see and creates transparency and fairness in the tax system. And, I think a very good case could be made that the price of goods will remain static or go down in many cases and that is in the context of most people paying less income taxes and having more spending power.

    Yes, Art Laffer and the Club For Growth are pushing an agenda. It’s called real tax reform that will generate real job growth. I like and support that agenda whole-heartedly.

  • Scope

    First off, to say that no one is even talking about the Capital Gains taxes etc. is a lie. Cain himself named them yesterday as the “hidden” taxes when he was interviewed by Gregory. I’m not trying to muddy the waters, you and Cain are, by using faulty arguments to detract from the real problems with the plan. It is deflection of the first order.

    No one has argued that business taxes are not included in the pricing of items. So again, a corporation paying 35% in business taxes, under Cain will now pay 9% business tax, and in many cases on a higher bottom line, because they will not have the business writeoffs they currently do. Less allowable expenses, more profits, higher tax liabilities, higher costs for their products. They will also be paying a 9% national sales tax on every item they buy to make their product, which until now they have not paid, as it is part of the cost of goods required to make the product. I promise you, the 9% national sales tax on items will cost far more than the current 35% tax, with allowable business expense deductions. The cost of every product made will now increase.

    Tax exemption certificates don’t exist for things like bread, unless you are in a very specific industry such as a major food chain or restaurant. Burger King would currently get a tax exemption on their buns, as they hold the Whopper together, and are necessary to make that sandwich. They exist for every item that must be purchased in order to produce that loaf of bread, or whatever inventory item you buy. You have no knowledge about Tax Exemption certificates, how they work, and what their purpose is, and you just proved that. You have proven that you are arguing for something that you have no clear understanding or knowledge of.

    Again, you don’t have a clue. By writing what you do, you are only helping to turn people off from 999, as if any excuse was needed.

  • jrhode2873

    Nobody is arguing that capital gains taxes for individuals are the driving forces behind hidden sales taxes. It is corporate taxes (taxes on exports, taxes on investments, taxes on profits) that are the driver of hidden sales taxes. I cannot believe I’m having an argument with a conservative about the comparison between a 35% corporate tax (with exemptions) versus a flat 9% corporate tax rate. This is what I mean by some conservatives are embarrassing themselves with their flawed logic about 999. Do conservatives not support a simpler tax code? Do conservatives not support transparency (getting rid of loopholes and special favors) in the tax code? Herman Cain’s plan is not an increase on sales taxes. It is a replacement tax for the current hidden taxes that makes the taxing of goods more visible and transparent. Like Herman Cain says, if you don’t want your taxes to go up don’t elect politicians that will raise them. That is true under the current system and it is true under the 999 system.

  • explodinghead

    If you are having a problem explaining the benefits of the plan to the readers of Red State, who love Herman Cain, how do you think his 9-9-9 plan is going to play in Peoria?
    Sorry, but the mass media are having a field day with how 9-9-9 will raise taxes on the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes. Whether or not the 9-9-9 plan would be great is not even a starter, the average Joe out there is not going to want to plod through the inconsistencies to find the good in the plan. They are going to follow the meme as given out by the MSM, evil republicans are starving Grandma again.
    I don’t know if people who are hurting for work right now are going to vote for a plan that makes them pay 9% on food.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    There is nothing about 999 that would restrict ANY taxes from being levied.

    Even assuming Cain were able to eliminate any taxes with his 999 plan, all of the supposed taxes that would be eliminated will be subject to “re-introduction” by any congress or president at any time.

    This just creates a new way to tax us. Not interested.

    Cain gets credit for going out on a limb. Now he needs to crawl back to the tree cause the limb is going to snap off and take him with it.

    He can walk this back by insisting he will only support a 999 implementation that includes a constitutional amendment capping the rates at 9% and restricting the federal government from collecting ANY other taxes or “fees.”

    I think Cain deserves his top three slot for now but this will sink him if he doesn’t rethink it a little.

  • satchman3

    I’m fairly certain that 999 will lower my federal income/payroll taxes. 999 seems too low to me. He has to replace the 7.65%x2 payroll taxes and income taxes.

    With 999, you would pay 9% of your income + 9% of your taxable purchases. Even if you spent the remaining 91% of your income on taxable purchases your effective tax rate would only be 17.2% regardless of your income level – if you don’t spend your money on taxable purchases your effective rate could be much lower.

    I don’t like the plan but I think there’s a lot of folks that would pay lower taxes under it.

  • carolynr

    You can talk hidden taxes all you want….I can’t afford a federal income tax, a state income tax and a state sales tax on purchase.
    That amounts to more than 27% to buy something.

  • jrhode2873

    This is not a new tax it is a replacement tax for taxes that are currently hidden in the price of goods. I have explained this in previous posts which you can read or better yet go to Herman Cain’s website and read it for yourself.

    As far as your arguments about 999 creating an environment for politicians to raise taxes and “re-introduce” taxes that were eliminated, this line of reasoning by the anti-999 crowd is the most ridiculous of them all. At worse, 999 would be the same kind of environment that you have now – politicians can raise your taxes to whatever they want and they have many avenues to do so and to do so in a deceptive way that is not transparent. In reality, 999 is gonna create an environment where it is more difficult to raise taxes and play class warfare games because of its simplicity and transparency. If you don’t want politicians to raise taxes don’t elect politicians that raise taxes. That is true now and it will be true in the future under 999.

  • jrhode2873

    If you don’t want to fight for conservatives principles you believe in because of Democrat scare tactics and the MSM, you might as well take your ideas and bury them in the ground somewhere.

  • jrhode2873

    Not trying to be dismissive here, but your state income taxes and state sales taxes are going to be there regardless if we reform the federal tax code or not. Without understanding your particular situation, I am just going to stick with the generic statement that in many cases the overall price of buying something(taxes included) is gonna remain static or probably go down in many cases because of good old-fashioned American enterprise and competition that 999 will stimulate.

  • powertothepeople

    is that the 9-9-9 plan will cause prices to soar. The comment you made about prices going down due to the market stimulation 9-9-9 would bring is just wrong, badly wrong and here is why.

    You are correct that state taxes already exist, that is not part of the fear most people have. The fear they have is the additional 9% it will bring to their budget on both taxes and income. This is what they see breaking the proverbial bank.

    I would benefit short term by the 9-9-9 plan but only if Congress were to act like they never have before. 9% corporate and 9% income would save me a ton of money every year but those savings would again be based on the far fetched hope and a prayer that congress would actually give away a revenue stream. But that being said,

    Most people would save on the income tax percent but only if Congress did not just put it on top of what they already pay. Same with the 9% sales tax. It would be a bit higher then what it is now, but again, this is based on the hope and a prayer that the fed does away with all other taxes and actually implements Cain’s plan as the only one.

    The reality is that Cain’s plan will be abused. Even if you believe that the fed gov will give up their current revenue streams and exchange them for the Cain plan, the eventual abuse will happen. First time they claim they are broke, the 9-9-9 goes to 15-15-15. Next time……….22-22-22……….and so on.

    But will most likely happen is that the lady above will incur an additional 9% on top of what she pays now bringing her expenditures to more than she can afford. Now instead of paying 8-15% in sales tax, they will pay 17-23%. Corporations will see an additional 9% tacked on top of what they already pay and consumers will pay that difference.

    It is just a bad idea not grounded in fact and reality. It is nothing more than a new form of revenue for the spend loving congress and another tax they can abuse by increasing it constantly without or without “reason.”

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    It is a high hurdle.
    Everybody will be subject to it and therefore have reason to oppose it.

    They do have a lot of hidden taxes. They were easy to implement because most people don’t know about them or are not subject to them. they will be easy to re-introduce later for the same reason.

    Cain’s plan in no way prevents this and it is silly to assume it won’t happen.

    In addition, there will always be plenty of reasons to tax “the rich” and no reason to believe tax rates won’t be graduated again. First it will be “stick kit to the millionaires” then to “the wealthy” which as we now know includes anybody who makes more than the average.
    Cain’s plan does nothing to prevent this. It will happen.

    Within 20 years of a 999 being introduced we will have all of the complexity of the income tax code back in it’s full glory plus the added benefit of the sales tax code, with empowerment zones and whatever other carve outs can be dreamed up.
    Cain’s plan does nothing to prevent this. It will happen.

    Everything about his plan is an act of congress and it is incredibly foolish to think it can’t be mucked up in short order by the next Bacha, Dingy Harry or Nazi Pelosi.

    It is the gift of a permanent new tax in exchange for short term reduction or elimination of existing taxes.

    This is an amazingly bad idea. But the truly amazing thing is how blindly it is being embraced. The good faith assumptions being granted to future presidents and congresses in light of the current president and congress simply staggers the intellect.

    It’s Charlie Brown and Lucy multiplied a thousand times.

    Why can’t folks just accept that “Hey Cain put something real on the table but that something real sucks.” Cain gets lots of credit for guts. But if he sticks with this you have to begin to question his ability to discern reality.

    The same holds true for folks blindly promoting 999. Your argument assumes a dreamy quality wherein you only see the benefits of this plan without any recognition whatever of the absolute certain effects of the plan. Namely a tax code as horrifyingly complex as currently exists combined with a new and nefarious tax levied against main street with all of the corrupt and evil machinations contained within the current tax code.

    wake up.

    IT WILL HAPPEN

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yes, humans and politicians will screw up what we pass, eventually. Reagan’s tax plans gave us a 25 year boom, but alas, eventually the code got adulterated again. So?

    Such is life. We need to scarp the current code and start all over. That is step 1.

    Americans are too divided, alcohol is legal and 18 year olds can vote.

    There will be no repeal of the 16th A.

    Life must go one, including tax reform AND 9-9-9 is as good a place to start over as any. Yes, it adds method of taxing, but gets rid of many kinds of taxing.

    I wrote a separate column but hope that Cain will spot me because I need a job and one reason I am trying to push back against conservative FAIR Tax single note banjoes is because I’ll starve waiting on them to do a damn thing. Cain’s plan would unleash a Reagan-like boom maybe long enough to save enough money so that my brother won’t have to pay to bury me, because what this great depression has done to my health can’t be fixed.

    9-9-9

    smile bro

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    We start over. Meanwhile, we have a big entrepreneurial boom..

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    I feel your pain. Really.

    like I pointed out above, I like Cain.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is being destroyed before our eyes.

    We need a bold plan and there are many that could be constructed that would do what 9-9-9 will do to immediate growth. But no plan will have appreciable better chance of lasting longer and not needing to be cleaned up years from now due to what conservatives should understand, ie

    human nature and politicians

    So what 9-9-9 opponents ought to do rather than wasting their breath criticizing 9-9-9 for things that only the Second Coming can solve, is to suggest Flat Tax alternatives and not insist that 3/4 of America gets all worked about the 16th amendment before we go bold. Ad the simplicity is also a needed positive.

    I said my peace. Now back to 21st C American poverty.

  • thirstyboots

    In the end, the tax burden rarely changes. Taxes go up, down, new taxes are created, others are eradicated, but what history tells us is that in the last 50 years the federal revenues as a % of the GDP have remained more or less constant between 17 and 19% – and the oscillations are more correlated with economic growth than changes in the tax structure.

    That’s just fearmongering. I for once would like to see some sort of peer-reviewed literature or empirical evidence supporting those claims.

    Consumption taxes are a much more jobs friendly and efficient than income taxes.

  • thirstyboots

    By this logic, we’re doomed. If you can’t sell this tax plan to the public, then there’s no way you can sell entitlement reform or even balanced budgets under the numbers proposed in the CCB Act – that would still imply a major increase in tax revenues.

  • thirstyboots

    As I said above:

    In the end, the tax burden rarely changes. Taxes go up, down, new taxes are created, others are eradicated, but what history tells us is that in the last 50 years the federal revenues as a % of the GDP have remained more or less constant between 17 and 19% ? and the oscillations are more correlated with economic growth than changes in the tax structure.

    That?s just fearmongering. I for once would like to see some sort of peer-reviewed literature or empirical evidence supporting those claims.

    —-

    You are an even more interesting case as you claim that 9-9-9 is somehow more prone to be subject of raises than, say, the current tax structure.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    “I for once would like to see some sort of peer-reviewed literature or empirical evidence supporting those claims.”

    You need peer reviewed to understand crooked SOB’s in Washington?

    This isn’t a debate about whether or not consumption taxes are better than income taxes. I would generally agree that is true.

    This is a debate about whether consumption taxes + income taxes are better than income taxes.

    Which isn’t really a debate.

    So then we have to look at what the debate really is. Can government be trusted to even give this one election cycle before corrupting it.

    Even that doesn’t warrant serious debate.

    I am not coming at this as somebody who wouldn’t benefit. I would easily save $50K and probably $100K a year in taxes under 999.
    I don’t believe the benefits would ever be realized.

    First, Cain will not get 999 through congress as proposed. It would be warped. Even if Republicans gain control of the senate, there are a great many RINOs, squishes whatever who have bought into the class warfare of progressivism. So how will they punish rich people?

    Second, too much credit is given to the idea of taxes being a drag on the economy. Don’t get me wrong, they are a drag. It’s not why you don’t open a hotdog stand. The regulatory burden at the federal, state and local level is far more likely to cause you to NOT start a new small business than mere taxes. From the FDA, OSHA, EPA, to state and local health departments shutting down lemonade stands to zoning boards. If you talk to folks in business you’ll find red-tape is a bigger problem than taxes. How is he going to reduce the federal regulatory burden so start-ups aren’t strangled by regulations?

    Third, to steal Cain’s line, when it comes to Washington, DC attacking the tax code is the wrong problem. We don’t have a revenue issue we have a spending problem. Address the biggest problem first because it will be the one that sinks us sooner rather than later. All it will take is a rise in interest rates as FED printing is guaranteed to cause. We borrow almost 40% of our budget. Tinkering with the tax code in a revenue neutral way isn’t going to solve that problem. Nor is raising taxes. Where is Cain going to cut 40% of the federal budget? Frankly it needs to be 90% but given the likelihood of that we must at least look at bare minimums. A 50% reduction might actually offer a way to pay down the debt. What departments will Cain totally eliminate? How will he save $2 Trillion? Every year?

    Look how cheap money is right now. The Federal Reserve is practically giving it away. Still no economic rebound.

    A tax cut isn’t going to change things. I agree with Obama, a balanced approach. Massive tax cuts coupled with massive spending cuts with a side of regulatory reform should strike the right balance.

    As I said, I would save $50K minimum under 999. Guess what, I wouldn’t hire a soul. I would sock it away just as I do right now with extra income. (Not in dollars.) It is what most people are doing and will do until leviathan is tamed. Until they have some grasp on what the future political environment is going to look like.

    It is frankly pathetic that America has been reduced into a Hugo Chavez style republic. What will the government seize or nationalize next? ala, GM and Chrysler. How will they regulate my industry to favor my politically $avvy competitor$ and thereby drive me out of business? Who will receive the next installment of inflationary stimulus money in exchange for political contributions?

    As I said 999 wouldn’t work if implemented as advertised and distracts from the real problem; Washington, DC’s spending habits and psychotic control fetish.

  • Green_Lantern

    99 wipes it clean. It will be cluttered again in 70 years. They can fix it. We have to get to the next 10 or 20.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Well, a couple actually:

    –Would you tend to be more supportive of a 9-9-9-type plan if it a) exempted from the sales tax food, clothing and medicine, and b) it included the repeal of the 16th Amendment?

    –It appears that you tend to be more supportive at this point of Governor Romney. Would you prefer him as president, along with what I perceive a willingness to compromise conservative values (which would include raising taxes), as opposed to a Cain, who at least to this point, shows no such willingness?

    It is interesting that you are attempting to smear Herman Cain with the words of George H. W. Bush, the posterboy for Eastern Patrician appeasement with the left– and who is the establishment equivalent to Mitt Romney in this cycle, at least, in that he is the most willing to accommodate the realpolitik of Washington.

    But, the video visuals are kinda funny. It was really, really strange to hear George H. W. Bush’s voice come out of Herman Cains mouth.

  • thirstyboots

    Have you ever read a single book about these issues? Be honest.

    I agree with this:

    “This is a debate about whether consumption taxes + income taxes are better than income taxes.

    Which isn?t really a debate.”

    Indeed, it isn’t really a debate. Consumption taxes are far more efficient and less distortionary than income taxes. Hence one should try to replace the later with the former to the larger extent possible. 9-9-9 is at least a step in the right direction.

    The rest of your comment are talking points not particularly relevant or interesting.

    First – the idea that conservatives should only fight for stuff that democrats approve is so weird and bizarre I’m not even going to address it.

    Second – what’s too much? Given by whom? I mean, that kind of talking point doesn’t mean anything.

    Third – The tax code is one of the problems and one of the big ones. Improving it doesn’t mean that everything else must remain untouched. The tax code is a mess, the tax structure can be greatly improved and just because we need to address spending and entitlement reform it doesn’t imply everything else must remain stagnant.

    ———

    And YES, I need some kind of empirical or theoretical evidence that backs up the claims constantly being done in this site on how a consumption tax will lead to an increase in tax revenues. People keep parroting that without presenting any kind of evidence whatsoever.

  • powertothepeople

    I understand your point before I respond. I would hate to address something you did not mean.

    Are you trying to say that the tax burden of those who pay taxes has basically stayed the same (fed taxes that is) over the last 50 years?

    Just need to make sure.

    By the way, thought you would never respond to me again since I declined to grant your silly need for an apology. Just wondering……….

  • thirstyboots

    I’m not sure what the doubt might be.

    I’m not trying to say anything. I said that “in the last 50 years the federal revenues as a % of the GDP have remained more or less constant”. Federal revenue since 1950 has averaged a bit under 18% of GDP. Sometimes the percentage is a bit lower, and sometimes it is a bit higher. Only for a couple of years during the late 90s economic boom it touched 20%. And only now and in the early 50s it went below 16%.

    In spite of all the changes in tax rates, structure, etc.

    That’s what I said. Do you need further clarification? If so, explain what.

    I’m not trying to say this “the tax burden of those who pay taxes has basically stayed the same (fed taxes that is) over the last 50 years?” because, quite frankly, I’m not even sure what that means. Please try to use objective terms when discussing these issues.

    —–

    I have no freaking idea on who you are. What apology? Please provide link.

  • powertothepeople

    and is nothing more than semantics.

    The actual percent versus GDP means little to the individual or your claim that the tax burden has stayed about the same. 50 years ago, a higher percent of the population was working and people paid less in taxes. Now, over 50% of the country pay no fed taxes which means the rest pay a much higher burden in order for the fed to remain around 20%.

    Your claim that the personal burden has remained pretty much the same and your use of the percent versus GDP would only be accurate if all factors had remained constant.

    Hence, this is why we fear the 9-9-9 and the fed governments constant abuse of our money via tax increases.

    And here is the link where you cried about an apology which was right before you were made a fool after calling Scope a liar and demanding an apology from her as well.

    Boo Hoo I need an apology!

  • thirstyboots

    It’s a FACT that in the last 50 years the federal revenues as a % of the GDP have remained more or less constant – averaging 18%, rarely going over 19% or below 16%.

    I didn’t claim anything about “personal burden” and I wont’ till you are able to define that expression in objective terms. It gets a bit scary when you talk about all the factors remaining constant when my point was that in spite of all the changes in other factors – the tax structure, the incidence and the rates changed multiple times – in the end the revenue raised remained basically the same.

    The point being that the fear that a new sales tax will lead to a larger tax burden over the economy is misplaced. If it isn’t, I’ve been asking for some kind of theoretical or empirical studies that backup that claim. None has been presented, which makes me believe that the proponents of such theory are just parroting talking points they don’t really understand.

    Oh, yeah, now I remember. Sorry, I don’t engage in conversations with people who can’t have argue without using personal insults. Nothing personal. So yeah, as long as I recall your nick I won’t further reply to you.

  • powertothepeople

    because you are unable to to articulate a reasoned response and it is obvious you are not very bright.

    Personal tax burden is quite easy to understand.

    You yourself used the words tax burden to refer to a persons share of the payment and then went on to claim it has not changed because the fed has consistently taken around 18% of the GDP even though that is irrelevant when it comes to each person and what they pay.

    And since you can not even understand that 18% of the GDP does not reflect the personal increase that has occurred it is ludicrous to believe you would understand how making individuals pay more will damage the economy.

    You are just not a bright bulb and I really hope you keep your word this time and never respond again as I have no patience for stupid which is something you have more than your fair share of.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Which is fine.

    999 won’t work. wont pass. is a waste of time.

    If Cain were looking for serious solutions he would be looking for ways to handle the very legitimate objections being raised.

    Until he does further discussion is pointless.