You don't get to owning 5% of the country through proper saving techniques.
To a point you are correct most of those people also had investments and or started successful businesses.
Did you know that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Did you know that most people obey the law? interesting enough.
I hear using your wealth and influence to shift the tax burden away from yourself is a dick move.
really so lets do a comparison. during the early 80's the effective tax rate (IE meaning what those evil top 1% paid in taxes) was about 20%-30% (some sources say .)
according to the lastest data they pay almost 40% now.
how is that shifting the tax burden away from them?
I hear using your wealth and influence to deregulate your industry is a dick move. I hear breaking the world financial system and causing the second biggest recession in American history is a dick move
I hear that most of these people end up in jail. IE maddoff, enron, accounting scandals.
of course if you deal in morgages and package bad loans then you can get away with it. more so if it crashes the economy in the mean time. (IE freddie and fannie). I hear you can setup government loan programs that are suppose to pay the tax payer back first yet go out of business and the tax payers get screwed. I heard it is cool to bail out industries as long as your union pals get the biggest slice of the pie, but really that is neither here nor there.
Well to be honest you should avoid fox news. they are biased as hell.
then you should avoid, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc... because they are all bias as hell as well.
We do have a poor distribution of wealth in our country. Between that people having off-shore bank accounts and outsourcing of jobs to 3rd world counties our system is failing. Oh and the broken tax code...forgot that one.
maybe if you fixed that the others would go away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I hear using your wealth and influence to shift the tax burden away from yourself is a dick move.
I hear using your wealth and influence to deregulate your industry is a dick move.
I hear breaking the world financial system and causing the second biggest recession in American history is a dick move
3rd biggest recession, but other wise I agree with your points. I will say also that when "small government" means "get government off my back but not yours" is not cool. I'm a small government conservative, a good education system, a good diplomatic core and national security systems, good low cost and paper upkeep regulatory framework, low taxes, good research and development system for basic research, and good infrastructure are all I ask for out of government, but realistically since people ask of government for healthcare and retirement, then those needs to be changed in a reverse pyramid fashion. So while infrastructure mostly benefits the rich and the elite, the social services should benefit the bottom. An implicit social contract that should be made more explicit. So instead of all being greedy little piglets trying to suckle on Uncle Sam's moobs to get monies, move towards systems that can be exploited in a frontier way like the west or the internet is today as the last created government frontier.
according to the lastest data they pay almost 40% now.
how is that shifting the tax burden away from them?
Income taxes on the ultra wealthy don't catch most of their wealth since stock dividends aren't counted as income, and neither are stock option. Steve Jobs became one of the wealthiest men in the country on his salary of $1 a year b/c of what his reforms did to Apple and its stock price. The ultra high earners are all paid through stock options and their low tax dividends. Accounting makes up the rest.
I'm really trying to hammer on the last line, that they are using their wealth to keep others down. Like a couple other posters commented on.
You don't get to owning 5% of the country through proper saving techniques. Bill Gates got their through, along with Steve Jobs, creating computing technology as we know it. Buffet does stocks or w/e. The Koch Brothers? Destroying the environment for profit. Then you have the wal mart triplets, George Soros and some Casino guy rounding out the top 10 on the Forbe's list
Did you know that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Forum policy. It's a must to do that or you can't be called a forum warrior.
I hear using your wealth and influence to shift the tax burden away from yourself is a dick move.
It is. Lucky for us we get 2.4 trillion a year in taxes from broke people....wait.
I hear using your wealth and influence to deregulate your industry is a dick move.
That can be a good thing and this is coming from a federal employee. You can keep up the intensified regulating and business will haul ---. Just like it is now. Can't have it both ways. Sorry.
I hear breaking the world financial system and causing the second biggest recession in American history is a dick move
You can thank politicians on both sides of the fence for that. You can thank Obama for allowing himself to be stonewalled by a republican house and just recently curb stomped by his own party controlled senate. No clue about that one. They are all misfits.
Income taxes on the ultra wealthy don't catch most of their wealth since stock dividends aren't counted as income, and neither are stock option. Steve Jobs became one of the wealthiest men in the country on his salary of $1 a year b/c of what his reforms did to Apple and its stock price. The ultra high earners are all paid through stock options and their low tax dividends. Accounting makes up the rest.
yet they still manage to pay 40% of the income tax.
the top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax after deductions.
what question still remains what make people think that they are entitled to something they didn't work for or earn or deserve.
it is easy to say that someone doesn't deserve it when it isn't yours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
yet they still manage to pay 40% of the income tax.
the top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax after deductions.
what question still remains what make people think that they are entitled to something they didn't work for or earn or deserve.
it is easy to say that someone doesn't deserve it when it isn't yours.
Consider the wealth divide in this country at the moment - it's the biggest it's been since the Great Depression.
No one is claiming that these men shouldn't be rich off of their work - the claim is that they shouldn't be THIS rich. Especially many whose work churns money rather than generating wealth, with finance being the biggest offender. Especially with the average American working more hours for the same pay. Especially with incomes having gone down over the past several years, and the average worker being expendable as ever. Life has gotten worse for Americans over the past 20 years as wages stagnated and work increased. Now, it's backsliding. These guys aren't worth what they're being paid.
really so lets do a comparison. during the early 80's the effective tax rate (IE meaning what those evil top 1% paid in taxes) was about 20%-30% (some sources say .)
according to the lastest data they pay almost 40% now.
Based on the US income tax rates for 2011 on wikipedia, that seems unlikely. Someone earning $500k before tax pays about 30.5% in tax, assuming they don't get any deductions, and that their income isn't taxed at a lower rate (capital gains?)
As the amount of money earned approached infinity, the tax rate would approach 35%, but even at an income of a million bucks a year, still only 32.7%.
The brackets for the early 80s aren't on that page (and I can't be bothered looking further ), but income over $250k was taxed at 50%. If such folk were only paying 20-30%, then they were evading about half their income tax; that sounds a bit evil, yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
according to who? who says they shouldn't if they earned it?
you want to be that rich then do what they did. save and invest. come up with a great idea that the market needs and sell your product or offer services.
grow the company get investors and other people just like they did.
it isn't easy it requires a ton of hard work and effort.
The brackets for the early 80s aren't on that page (and I can't be bothered looking further ), but income over $250k was taxed at 50%.
actually during the early 80's the tax rate was about 70%, However the amount of deductions allowed was infinitly stupid. you could basically write off anything and everything.
so while the tax rate was 70% the effective tax rate meaning what they actually ended up paying on was much much less.
reagan changed the tax code. lowered the tax rate but closed off many of the tax loopholes and deductions that people could take. so the effective tax rate actually rose.
which is why i am kinda catching onto Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
9% corporate tax
9% income tax (very few deductions next to none).
9% sales tax
will have to look at it closer but it is something so far that i can get behind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
1. A dangerous organization exists at the heart of the society which molds people in unnatural ways through the creation of artificial relationships, distorting their motivations and actions through fear and coercion. We call that government.
2. Whether using it for their own ends or altruistic ends, certain people use the government to create specific sets of relationships. In this case, laws.
3. Acting under the influence of those artificial relationships, certain people take distorted actions that result in the collapse of economic well-being.
4. Said people then co-opt government to create more artificial relationships to rescue them from the first set.
5. New people become irritated that the previous group is using the government as a "weapon" (which it is), so instead of trying to destroy the weapon so that all can live harmoniously, they decide to co-opt the weapon for themselves and turn it in the direction of the previous group. We call these guys Occupy Wall Street.
6. Everyone is hurt, whether it's the first group, second group or innocent bystanders.
7. Repeat.
In essence, government is the ring. Throw it into Mount Doom.
The scenario was described by Bastiat in The Lawhundreds of years ago, and it continues today.
I've now watched the videos that outline what the protest (if not the protesters) is pushing, and even being a fiscal conservative, I agree.
This is a trickle down economy, so some wealth needs to start trickling. The proposition is an increase in wages (through Unionization if need be), so that the Middle and Lower class can spend more money. I've always joked that people aren't spending because there are no jobs, and there are no jobs because people aren't spending, but it's true.
The goal isn't to create a Socialism, it's to fix an economy that's been broken for most of a decade.
which is why i am kinda catching onto Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
9% corporate tax
9% income tax (very few deductions next to none).
9% sales tax
will have to look at it closer but it is something so far that i can get behind.
9% corporate tax (exempting capital income)
9% income tax (minus charitable contributions and investment dividends)
9% sales tax (minus used goods)
No capital gains tax, no inheritance tax
Seems like that makes life a lot easier for the well-off and harder for the not-well-off (I read that the sales tax stacks with any state-level sales tax; more than half of inheritance tax is currently paid by the top 0.1%; people whose income is from investment dividends only pay the sales 9%, not the income 9%). Can it possibly be revenue-neutral?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Because its better for me to have a 17.75% tax on everything I buy in the state of washington than to have rich people pay income tax rates on money from investments.
For all the complaining Republicans do about "class warfare", 9-9-9 is basically that. It's a tax plan that screws over the poor so that we can let the very rich keep even more of their money.
For all the complaining Republicans do about "class warfare", 9-9-9 is basically that. It's a tax plan that screws over the poor so that we can let the very rich keep even more of their money.
Hypothetically Cain's emphasis on buying used goods is one proper point about the poor, if they bought say a used car they would not pay the consumption tax. However, this would just drive up the price of used goods.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Seems like that makes life a lot easier for the well-off and harder for the not-well-off
it comes out about the same. it encourages more savings and investment as well. if i know i can invest without the government coming and taking whatever i make then i will do so.
people that have 104K's that have been saving for years and years and want to go into retirement will not have to worry about the government taxing them on what they take out. giving them more disposable income.
I read that the sales tax stacks with any state-level sales tax
most other nations have VAT taxes that also stack with other locale taxes as well. so what is the difference? most VAT taxes are extremly high as well.
Can it possibly be revenue-neutral?
right now there isn't an official source on the issue. most of the article i can find are people for it or against it and argue that view point.
Because its better for me to have a 17.75% tax on everything I buy in the state of washington than to have rich people pay income tax rates on money from investments.
it completely does away with payroll taxes. which means it saves you 15% of federal and 15% of SS tax.
which means in the long run it saves you almost 30% per check. before you say my employer pays half. no they don't. you pay it lower wages, lower raises etc ... remember companies don't pay taxes. they charge it off on their employee's and the consumer.
For all the complaining Republicans do about "class warfare", 9-9-9 is basically that. It's a tax plan that screws over the poor so that we can let the very rich keep even more of their money.
again not really because while they might not pay taxes on capital gains. you no longer pay on what you take home. you get to keep it in full.
payroll taxes are much hard supression on the middle class and poor than anything else. it is highly regessive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
again not really because while they might not pay taxes on capital gains. you no longer pay on what you take home. you get to keep it in full.
payroll taxes are much hard supression on the middle class and poor than anything else. it is highly regessive.
National sales tax is also highly regressive, and a flat tax on income is effectively regressive because the poor are less able to afford that percentage than the rich, for whom it comes out of disposable income.
National sales tax is also highly regressive, and a flat tax on income is effectively regressive because the poor are less able to afford that percentage than the rich, for whom it comes out of disposable income.
The lowest marginal tax rate for income in the US is 10% (so Cain's plans cuts it by a little). However, I agree that a national sales tax, even if it's just on new items, is highly regressive, and ultimately not worth it. Also, what is Herman Cain's plan on things like tax returns, and credits? What about states without sales tax on food, like here in Texas, does the cost of food go up by 9%, which is VERY substantial. These are things he hasn't talked about yet.
Is a national sales tax even constitutionally legal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
The lowest marginal tax rate for income in the US is 10% (so Cain's plans cuts it by a little). However, I agree that a national sales tax, even if it's just on new items, is highly regressive, and ultimately not worth it. Also, what is Herman Cain's plan on things like tax returns, and credits? What about states without sales tax on food, like here in Texas, does the cost of food go up by 9%, which is VERY substantial. These are things he hasn't talked about yet.
Is a national sales tax even constitutionally legal?
The thing is that someone in the 10% bracket is not paying 10% because of various deductions and tax credits. Cain's plan eliminates (almost?) all of those, so while it might be a decrease at first glance, it's actually a significant increase. Further, you also have to consider that it cuts the tax rate for the richest people down to just 9%. If you make $10 million, 9% is nothing - the difference of quality of life between $10 million and $9.1 million is essentially 0. On the other hand, the difference between $10,000 and $9,100 is a lot, because you'd be scraping every penny you make.
National sales tax is also highly regressive, and a flat tax on income is effectively regressive because the poor are less able to afford that percentage than the rich, for whom it comes out of disposable income.
If you ever get a chance to read the FairTax proposal (which is the national sales tax in lieu of a Federal income taxes proposal), you'd see that only "non-essential" items are taxed. The basics, such as food and non-luxury clothing, are tax-free. Furthermore, low-income families receive an annual check equal to the taxes they would pay on any purchases up to what the Federal poverty level is.
So under the FairTax proposal, the "taxes" on the poor actually don't change. They still don't pay taxes, at least up to the Federal poverty level, and the most basic necessities of life are all tax-free. The FairTax is aimed almost entirely at taxing the rich.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
no they don't. you pay it lower wages, lower raises etc ... remember companies don't pay taxes. they charge it off on their employee's and the consumer.
Don't companies pay taxes in actual terms as well though? For example if a company as a result of a tax, pays it's workers less, charges more for the end product and takes a hit to their profits(and profit margins). Who pays the last part? The shareholders is what I thought would be the ones who payed the tax, when I read it in Gregory Mankiws book, but companies are also shareholders to themselves as well. So the company thereby pays taxes, unless I am missing something important here.
If you ever get a chance to read the FairTax proposal (which is the national sales tax in lieu of a Federal income taxes proposal), you'd see that only "non-essential" items are taxed. The basics, such as food and non-luxury clothing, are tax-free. Furthermore, low-income families receive an annual check equal to the taxes they would pay on any purchases up to what the Federal poverty level is.
So under the FairTax proposal, the "taxes" on the poor actually don't change. They still don't pay taxes, at least up to the Federal poverty level, and the most basic necessities of life are all tax-free. The FairTax is aimed almost entirely at taxing the rich.
Does anyone really believe that if we cut taxes for the rich that they will pass the savings down to the poor?
Will the price of bread really decrease? If this 9-9-9 plan is passed, is the price of my $5 footlong going to go down to $4.80? Of course not. I'll just have to pay more money while the rich keep getting more and more.
Does anyone really believe that if we cut taxes for the rich that they will pass the savings down to the poor?
Will the price of bread really decrease? If this 9-9-9 plan is passed, is the price of my $5 footlong going to go down to $4.80? Of course not. I'll just have to pay more money while the rich keep getting more and more.
Stick to magic. Don't bother with that kind of statement. Obama is a smart fellow, that's for sure. Get enough guys like you believing the class warfare crap and he might get a few stupid bills passed and maybe, just maybe get re-elected. Bravo sir. Bravo. You are taking a giant leap for the continual reduction of our society and country as a whole to a toilet. After all, every country that enjoys socialistic societies seems to be doing well right? Oh, never mind. They are all groveling at the United States feet for scraps. Why not become like them so we can be reduced to that. That is what you want.
Stick to magic. Don't bother with that kind of statement. Obama is a smart fellow, that's for sure. Get enough guys like you believing the class warfare crap and he might get a few stupid bills passed and maybe, just maybe get re-elected. Bravo sir. Bravo. You are taking a giant leap for the continual reduction of our society and country as a whole to a toilet. After all, every country that enjoys socialistic societies seems to be doing well right? Oh, never mind. They are all groveling at the United States feet for scraps. Why not become like them so we can be reduced to that. That is what you want.
In that one paragraph you employed Fear Tactics, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Biased Sample, and Slippery Slope. I ask everyone to disregard that post before this becomes an emotional wreck wherein nothing gets done.
To a point you are correct most of those people also had investments and or started successful businesses.
Did you know that most people obey the law? interesting enough.
really so lets do a comparison. during the early 80's the effective tax rate (IE meaning what those evil top 1% paid in taxes) was about 20%-30% (some sources say .)
according to the lastest data they pay almost 40% now.
how is that shifting the tax burden away from them?
I hear that most of these people end up in jail. IE maddoff, enron, accounting scandals.
of course if you deal in morgages and package bad loans then you can get away with it. more so if it crashes the economy in the mean time. (IE freddie and fannie). I hear you can setup government loan programs that are suppose to pay the tax payer back first yet go out of business and the tax payers get screwed. I heard it is cool to bail out industries as long as your union pals get the biggest slice of the pie, but really that is neither here nor there.
then you should avoid, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc... because they are all bias as hell as well.
maybe if you fixed that the others would go away.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
3rd biggest recession, but other wise I agree with your points. I will say also that when "small government" means "get government off my back but not yours" is not cool. I'm a small government conservative, a good education system, a good diplomatic core and national security systems, good low cost and paper upkeep regulatory framework, low taxes, good research and development system for basic research, and good infrastructure are all I ask for out of government, but realistically since people ask of government for healthcare and retirement, then those needs to be changed in a reverse pyramid fashion. So while infrastructure mostly benefits the rich and the elite, the social services should benefit the bottom. An implicit social contract that should be made more explicit. So instead of all being greedy little piglets trying to suckle on Uncle Sam's moobs to get monies, move towards systems that can be exploited in a frontier way like the west or the internet is today as the last created government frontier.
Horse ****, you ever even talk to lobbyists yourself? Hell, even the Catholic church has a little nun these days walking around DC.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Income taxes on the ultra wealthy don't catch most of their wealth since stock dividends aren't counted as income, and neither are stock option. Steve Jobs became one of the wealthiest men in the country on his salary of $1 a year b/c of what his reforms did to Apple and its stock price. The ultra high earners are all paid through stock options and their low tax dividends. Accounting makes up the rest.
Hey. Bolded.
yet they still manage to pay 40% of the income tax.
the top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax after deductions.
what question still remains what make people think that they are entitled to something they didn't work for or earn or deserve.
it is easy to say that someone doesn't deserve it when it isn't yours.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Consider the wealth divide in this country at the moment - it's the biggest it's been since the Great Depression.
No one is claiming that these men shouldn't be rich off of their work - the claim is that they shouldn't be THIS rich. Especially many whose work churns money rather than generating wealth, with finance being the biggest offender. Especially with the average American working more hours for the same pay. Especially with incomes having gone down over the past several years, and the average worker being expendable as ever. Life has gotten worse for Americans over the past 20 years as wages stagnated and work increased. Now, it's backsliding. These guys aren't worth what they're being paid.
Based on the US income tax rates for 2011 on wikipedia, that seems unlikely. Someone earning $500k before tax pays about 30.5% in tax, assuming they don't get any deductions, and that their income isn't taxed at a lower rate (capital gains?)
As the amount of money earned approached infinity, the tax rate would approach 35%, but even at an income of a million bucks a year, still only 32.7%.
The brackets for the early 80s aren't on that page (and I can't be bothered looking further ), but income over $250k was taxed at 50%. If such folk were only paying 20-30%, then they were evading about half their income tax; that sounds a bit evil, yes.
according to who? who says they shouldn't if they earned it?
you want to be that rich then do what they did. save and invest. come up with a great idea that the market needs and sell your product or offer services.
grow the company get investors and other people just like they did.
it isn't easy it requires a ton of hard work and effort.
actually during the early 80's the tax rate was about 70%, However the amount of deductions allowed was infinitly stupid. you could basically write off anything and everything.
so while the tax rate was 70% the effective tax rate meaning what they actually ended up paying on was much much less.
reagan changed the tax code. lowered the tax rate but closed off many of the tax loopholes and deductions that people could take. so the effective tax rate actually rose.
which is why i am kinda catching onto Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
9% corporate tax
9% income tax (very few deductions next to none).
9% sales tax
will have to look at it closer but it is something so far that i can get behind.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
1. A dangerous organization exists at the heart of the society which molds people in unnatural ways through the creation of artificial relationships, distorting their motivations and actions through fear and coercion. We call that government.
2. Whether using it for their own ends or altruistic ends, certain people use the government to create specific sets of relationships. In this case, laws.
3. Acting under the influence of those artificial relationships, certain people take distorted actions that result in the collapse of economic well-being.
4. Said people then co-opt government to create more artificial relationships to rescue them from the first set.
5. New people become irritated that the previous group is using the government as a "weapon" (which it is), so instead of trying to destroy the weapon so that all can live harmoniously, they decide to co-opt the weapon for themselves and turn it in the direction of the previous group. We call these guys Occupy Wall Street.
6. Everyone is hurt, whether it's the first group, second group or innocent bystanders.
7. Repeat.
In essence, government is the ring. Throw it into Mount Doom.
The scenario was described by Bastiat in The Law hundreds of years ago, and it continues today.
This is a trickle down economy, so some wealth needs to start trickling. The proposition is an increase in wages (through Unionization if need be), so that the Middle and Lower class can spend more money. I've always joked that people aren't spending because there are no jobs, and there are no jobs because people aren't spending, but it's true.
The goal isn't to create a Socialism, it's to fix an economy that's been broken for most of a decade.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Because its better for me to have a 17.75% tax on everything I buy in the state of washington than to have rich people pay income tax rates on money from investments.
Hypothetically Cain's emphasis on buying used goods is one proper point about the poor, if they bought say a used car they would not pay the consumption tax. However, this would just drive up the price of used goods.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
it comes out about the same. it encourages more savings and investment as well. if i know i can invest without the government coming and taking whatever i make then i will do so.
people that have 104K's that have been saving for years and years and want to go into retirement will not have to worry about the government taxing them on what they take out. giving them more disposable income.
most other nations have VAT taxes that also stack with other locale taxes as well. so what is the difference? most VAT taxes are extremly high as well.
right now there isn't an official source on the issue. most of the article i can find are people for it or against it and argue that view point.
it completely does away with payroll taxes. which means it saves you 15% of federal and 15% of SS tax.
which means in the long run it saves you almost 30% per check. before you say my employer pays half. no they don't. you pay it lower wages, lower raises etc ... remember companies don't pay taxes. they charge it off on their employee's and the consumer.
again not really because while they might not pay taxes on capital gains. you no longer pay on what you take home. you get to keep it in full.
payroll taxes are much hard supression on the middle class and poor than anything else. it is highly regessive.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
National sales tax is also highly regressive, and a flat tax on income is effectively regressive because the poor are less able to afford that percentage than the rich, for whom it comes out of disposable income.
The lowest marginal tax rate for income in the US is 10% (so Cain's plans cuts it by a little). However, I agree that a national sales tax, even if it's just on new items, is highly regressive, and ultimately not worth it. Also, what is Herman Cain's plan on things like tax returns, and credits? What about states without sales tax on food, like here in Texas, does the cost of food go up by 9%, which is VERY substantial. These are things he hasn't talked about yet.
Is a national sales tax even constitutionally legal?
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
The thing is that someone in the 10% bracket is not paying 10% because of various deductions and tax credits. Cain's plan eliminates (almost?) all of those, so while it might be a decrease at first glance, it's actually a significant increase. Further, you also have to consider that it cuts the tax rate for the richest people down to just 9%. If you make $10 million, 9% is nothing - the difference of quality of life between $10 million and $9.1 million is essentially 0. On the other hand, the difference between $10,000 and $9,100 is a lot, because you'd be scraping every penny you make.
If you ever get a chance to read the FairTax proposal (which is the national sales tax in lieu of a Federal income taxes proposal), you'd see that only "non-essential" items are taxed. The basics, such as food and non-luxury clothing, are tax-free. Furthermore, low-income families receive an annual check equal to the taxes they would pay on any purchases up to what the Federal poverty level is.
So under the FairTax proposal, the "taxes" on the poor actually don't change. They still don't pay taxes, at least up to the Federal poverty level, and the most basic necessities of life are all tax-free. The FairTax is aimed almost entirely at taxing the rich.
Don't companies pay taxes in actual terms as well though? For example if a company as a result of a tax, pays it's workers less, charges more for the end product and takes a hit to their profits(and profit margins). Who pays the last part? The shareholders is what I thought would be the ones who payed the tax, when I read it in Gregory Mankiws book, but companies are also shareholders to themselves as well. So the company thereby pays taxes, unless I am missing something important here.
9-9-9 is not FairTax.
Will the price of bread really decrease? If this 9-9-9 plan is passed, is the price of my $5 footlong going to go down to $4.80? Of course not. I'll just have to pay more money while the rich keep getting more and more.
Stick to magic. Don't bother with that kind of statement. Obama is a smart fellow, that's for sure. Get enough guys like you believing the class warfare crap and he might get a few stupid bills passed and maybe, just maybe get re-elected. Bravo sir. Bravo. You are taking a giant leap for the continual reduction of our society and country as a whole to a toilet. After all, every country that enjoys socialistic societies seems to be doing well right? Oh, never mind. They are all groveling at the United States feet for scraps. Why not become like them so we can be reduced to that. That is what you want.
Flame warning.
In that one paragraph you employed Fear Tactics, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Biased Sample, and Slippery Slope. I ask everyone to disregard that post before this becomes an emotional wreck wherein nothing gets done.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!