TexasCHLforum.com

As I read Cain's plan on his own website:

Phase 1 includes establishing the national sales tax of 9%, in ADDITION to the income tax, which would presumably be lowered to 9%.

Phase 2 eliminates the income tax by going to the Fair Tax plan, which is essentially a fairl steep national sales tax, again as I understand it. It abolishes the income tax and the IRS.

Phase 1 would only require a simple majority vote of both houses plus a signature from Prez Cain. Presumably he might get this done during his first term. The actual percentages levied would of course also be subject to simple majority votes (i.e. horse-trading) of the houses. It could easily become the 18-18-18 plan, or the 25-15-20 plan, or whatever.

Phase 2, which would come later would seem to require repealing the 16th Amendment (the white paper at the Fairtax.org website mentions this), which would require not just a simple majority of both houses, but a two-thirds majority of both houses, plus ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. A process that would take several years and likely outlast even a second term Prez Cain.

So adding a new federal government revenue stream, and setting its rate, would only take a normal simple act of any one congressional session. Depriving the federal government of a revenue stream and all the opportunities for fiddling the system it represents would require several years two-thirds majorities, probably yet another tax-averse president, and agreement by hundreds of legislators across the country.

Me-thinks this is not a realistic plan.

The only way I see this as being reasonable is if the income tax is killed simultaneously with implementation of the sales tax.

That's true for people who have a paycheck. What about those that don't? Such as SS recipients I mentioned above (13+ Million) and anyone else out of work?

Right. I mentioned this to my son 3 years ago when the national sales tax proposals began to gain steam. His response was: " Surely, food, clothing and other necessities would not be taxed nationally." Here we go with the exemptions again until we have another 35,000 page (or whatever) tax code again, and tax preparers to help file returns. BTW, I have no paycheck to stop taking tax out of, but I would have to add the 9% sales tax to all of the other non-payroll taxes. I watch Fox News regularly, and they haven't mentioned, to my knowledge, any of what I wrote here. Also, I haven't heard the wonderful AARP mention it either.

9-9-9 is fertilizer. So is this plan. I could go for 0-0-0 tho.

rdcrags wrote:Also, I haven't heard the wonderful AARP mention it either.

The only thing you will hear from the AARP is another offer for useless insurance that you don't need and a free $2.50 radio!

They are another scam that bleeds Seniors out of money and are a totally LEFT organization. Right up there with the "Reverse Mortgage" scammers! "Don't let any grass grow under your feet"!

Fox finally started talking (yesterday) about just what you and I are talking about.

The Fair Tax plan includes a monthly prebate that would go to all people that would, in theory, "refund" the taxes paid on necessities. Therefore no deductions are necessary. This is the key to keeping it from being a regressive tax.

I'm only a fan of the 9-9-9 plan if it leads to the Fair Tax as it doesn't address several things that have already been mentioned in this thread.

Lumberjack98 wrote:The Fair Tax plan includes a monthly prebate that would go to all people that would, in theory, "refund" the taxes paid on necessities. Therefore no deductions are necessary. This is the key to keeping it from being a regressive tax.

I'm only a fan of the 9-9-9 plan if it leads to the Fair Tax as it doesn't address several things that have already been mentioned in this thread.

Good to see another FairTax plan advocate.
The problem with income taxes is that they're added to the cost of all products through every step of their manufacture.
So if you consider the manufacture of a car, the cost of that car includes a component for the income taxes of the workers that assembled it.
It also contains a component for the income taxes for the steel-workers that made the steel.
It also contains a component for the miners that remove the ore from the ground.
And for the workers in the company that made the machines that were used to remove that ore.
And so on, and so on, and so on...

This is a hidden tax that we all pay every time we buy a product.

You can check it out for yourself at http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AEA wrote:That's true for people who have a paycheck. What about those that don't? Such as SS recipients I mentioned above (13+ Million) and anyone else out of work?

Cain's plan taxes income at 9% and sales at 9%. Two people with the same standard of living would pay the same sales tax on their purchases. That sounds fair. Two people with the same income would pay the same 9% no matter whether they work 50 hours a week, day trade, or collect a pension. That sounds fair. Someone with a lower standard of living would pay proportionately less taxes.

That sounds a whole lot better than the half ton tax code we have now, with all the special tax breaks for the special interest groups.

I agree with a VAT or national sales tax in lieu of income tax.

We should tax consumption and not savings.

With a VAT or NST, Congress can set exemptions, etc. for certain groups/income levels above the board.

The IRS would go away almost entirely. The NST would be collected by the states, which already have sales tax mechanisms in place.

It's easier to audit thousands of companies that sell product, than audit the millions of individuals with complicated rules in the current tax code.

TLE2 wrote:With a VAT or NST, Congress can set exemptions, etc. for certain groups/income levels above the board.

I hope not. That's how we got where we are now. Lobbyists enticing lawmakers to use the tax code to rob Peter to pay Paul. A true fair tax hits every dollar the same, no matter who is the buyer, who is the seller, and the type of labor or good sold.

You don't want a VAT. That's another tax that's added at every step of production. One of the great points about the Fair Tax is that it's only applied to the ORIGINAL sale of merchandise to the consumer.

ELB wrote:The actual percentages levied would of course also be subject to simple majority votes (i.e. horse-trading) of the houses. It could easily become the 18-18-18 plan, or the 25-15-20 plan, or whatever.

Exactly. The original federal income tax in 1913 was supposed to affect only the wealthiest one percent of the nation. Even those folks at the very top would pay seven percent... and look at the IRS now. When compared to the fact that the Boston Tea Party was all about one-half of one percent, it's obvious how conditioned we have become now-a-days to accept heavy tax schemata. And don't be fooled by a VAT; we'll end up with the VAT (taxes paid over and over) and our current income taxes if that's pushed through. I recommend checking out the old Congressional Records, accessible in Google... I promise the read will be astounding. Cain's FRB background will ensure more of the same, only with a different facade.

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Bart wrote:

philip964 wrote:Why should a local bookstore have to charge a sales tax and Amazon not.

Amazon would have to pay a national sales tax so you should like that. They don't have to pay local sales tax in places they're not local, but Texans who buy from Amazon are required by law to submit the tax because Amazon doesn't.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/use/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doesn't Amazon have a warehouse for shipping in the Dallas area? If they do, That is the reason for the taxation, brick and mortar establishment in the state. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Is"the devil we know" (current tax code) something we can salvage?
Can we all agree that the current tax code is the "tap root" of our current malaise?

I'm not going to be able to support a candidate (in the primaries at least) that advocates tweaking the current system.
I'm predicting a surprise win for the guy that makes the best case for starting over.

There's little reason our tax code can't fit in ONE medium sized paperback.
Define the basis and rate(s), make provisions for the poor and those on fixed income, allow deductions ONLY for charity (taking out charitable contribution deductions would be a disaster for charities, and charitable organizations will be the best vehicle to take over much of the assistance for those in poverty. A charitable deduction MUST be retained, but that's it... Not a mortgage deduction, no "investment" deductions, nothing. IMO YMMV)

9-9-9, Fair Tax... Whatever... There are flaws in all of them, what's on the table are good starting points... but any of them are better for our long term future, for cleaning the special interests and political pandering out of government, than what we have today.

One page of his website complains about subsidies, and special tax breaks in which the government “plays favorite”

Another page says in his 999 tax plan Empowerment Zones will offer deductions to play favorites.

He sounds like a Washington Insider already.

Personally I strongly favor the fair tax! I wish we would have a canidat in the Race that would support the Fair Tax. I would vote for them in a heart beat but I don't see that happening.