TexasCHLforum.com

He is changing his tune for the better:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10 ... s-barrage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I fear the most about 999 is that once in the Washington bull what will stop it from becoming 10-10-10 or then 14-14-14. We need tax reform of course, but this may not be the best plan.

You have a very valid fear!

mamabearCali wrote:What I fear the most about 999 is that once in the Washington bull what will stop it from becoming 10-10-10 or then 14-14-14. We need tax reform of course, but this may not be the best plan.

That is true no matter what tax plan you use, including the current one. Therefore, it becomes a null argument. (Or at least an argument to do nothing, forever.)

What worries me more about any plan that purports to replace the income tax with a sales tax, is that it would end up being BOTH a sales tax AND an income tax. That's not a reason not to do it, but rather a plea to perform the switch-over such that it can't happen.

Again, I'm a Fair Tax supporter, however I see the 9-9-9 plan as a way of getting there. Cain lists the 9-9-9 plan as Phase 1 and the Fair Tax as Phase 2 of his plan.

The beauty in the 9-9-9 plan and ultimately the Fair Tax, is that it is very transparent. Currently there are so many embedded taxes, it's easy to lose track of them. Corporate income taxes are a joke. Ultimately, corporations pay zero income taxes and the consumer pays 100% of the income taxes, they just don't always realize it. Once you show someone the real taxes they are paying (even those that pay "zero" federal income taxes), they become vested in the tax code. Right now, so many of the taxes are hidden, people don't realize they are paying them.

Neither of these plans are popular because there are few or no loopholes and nothing to lobby for or against. I want to know what the "empowermnet zones" are for the 9-9-9 plan though.

sjfcontrol wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I fear the most about 999 is that once in the Washington bull what will stop it from becoming 10-10-10 or then 14-14-14. We need tax reform of course, but this may not be the best plan.

That is true no matter what tax plan you use, including the current one. Therefore, it becomes a null argument. (Or at least an argument to do nothing, forever.)

What worries me more about any plan that purports to replace the income tax with a sales tax, is that it would end up being BOTH a sales tax AND an income tax. That's not a reason not to do it, but rather a plea to perform the switch-over such that it can't happen.

Nail-head, meet hammer.

AEA wrote:He is changing his tune for the better:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10 ... s-barrage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a problem with the sales tax portion of Herman's plan, but I think this new suggestion, to replace the 9% sales tax with a 9% payroll tax shared equally between employee and employer, will be much more palatable for a lot of people. I hope Herman will adopt it. He can easily explain the change by stating that he has consistently said that he will listen to his advisers and make decisions based on that advice. As it became clear that many Americans were very leery about a national sales tax, the sensibility of simply lowering the existing payroll tax was compelling to him.

Personally I would prefer either a national sales tax or a national flat income tax, because I think it's important that everyone understands what government is costing them. But I understand that people are averse to change, so Herman's transitional plan makes a great deal of sense.

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Cain deals with this issue....
Does he stick to his guns? Does he revise his plan and if so, how does he explain/present it? How is that explanation received?

More every day I am coming to believe that Mr. Cain's candidacy is real and a vote for him will not be wasted. Yes, there are things I don't like about his positions... but... like the NRA (who I certainly don't agree with all the time), I'm feeling like he's got the right priorities and I can work with him on the specifics. Still undecided, but leaning.

Here's an opportunity for him to prove that he can make compromises without compromising himself.

I might vote for Cain if he changed his position on guns and announced that states are very limited by the constitution in what gun control laws they can pass, same as they're limited in what religion control laws they can pass.

boba wrote:I might vote for Cain if he changed his position on guns and announced that states are very limited by the constitution in what gun control laws they can pass, same as they're limited in what religion control laws they can pass.

All of that tap dancing would make me more concerned. I'm all for taking the recommendations of domain specific experts under advisement and being flexible, but if he makes concessions on his tax plan and changes his positions on guns/federalism (even for the better), who knows what policies his administration will end up pushing. Reminds me too much of what we already have in office.

IMO, he would be well justified in changing his position on VAT, assuming the switch to a payroll tax can accomplish much of the same thing. I too am worried about uncorking VAT as a new stream of revenue for Congress to abuse.... but.. there's little to stop them, other than convention, from raising ANY existing tax... It's just that a "tiny" 1% change in the VAT would reap such huge revenue that I'm afraid it would be too tempting for Congress to stay away..

Bottom line is... we have a tax system today that Congress can hide behind while dishing out favors to their friends. Our tax system is a national embarrassment and a waste of compliance resources (the IRS and my accountant can both go find new jobs, IMO) in addition to being an insider payback system... It has to go. The momentum is building..

RoyGBiv wrote:IMO, he would be well justified in changing his position on VAT...

Assuming that Cain's Sales Tax "9" is the same as used in the Fair Tax, then it is improper to refer to it as a VAT tax. VAT taxes are imposed at each step of manufacture of a product. A Sales Tax is only applied to the final retail purchase. There is a vast difference.

wikipedia wrote:The "value added" to a product by a business is the sale price charged to its customer, minus the cost of materials and other taxable inputs. A VAT is like a sales tax in that ultimately only the end consumer is taxed. It differs from the sales tax in that, with the latter, the tax is collected and remitted to the government only once, at the point of purchase by the end consumer. With the VAT, collections, remittances to the government, and credits for taxes already paid occur each time a business in the supply chain purchases products.