Who the fuck are you kidding.....you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in head. Now run along and go beat off to your Mikey Moore collection.Just stating the FACTS....something you never cared for!....
Cain's 9-9-9 plan
- Thread starter Brotherman
- Start date
His plan has been vetted by many economists and business people, don't know where you get your assertions from. More left wing lunacy I assume.
How come you never want to see job creation?
Might better and more jobs do more for Americans than your plan????
Actually, both he and his campaign have bragged the the plan has not been vetted by many economists and business people. You seem to have this backwards.
WOW
and yet when the dems want to raise taxes to create more programs; this is a good thing?
YOU simply can not tax your way to prosperity.
The Government creates no jobs at all that do not depend on confiscated money.
Only the private sector can create jobs and increase the tax base.
What is wrong with a level playing field?
If you make 10,000 dollars per year you pay 900 dollars per year in tax.
So if you make 100,000 or ten times more you pay ten times more.
People will invest more into business when this country stops waffling on the economy.
OK, now I see. Besides shifting taxation from the rich to the poor, the purpose of the plan is also to reduce the
overall tax revenue.
That is a brilliant idea, when the country is going bancrupt. Does Cain have any greek ancestors?
There are three fundamental problems with your approach.
Firstly you have this assumption that only the private sector can create jobs. Firstly, this is factually not true. Secondly the private sector can create jobs with public money, it is a tried and true formula.
Secondly, the current economic crisis evolved in a very low tax environment. thus once again proving that low taxes does not seem to create jobs.
Thirdly, and most importantly, you clearly do not understand Mr. Cain's tax plan proposals, and are stuck in its initial step. The Cain plan does not stop at 9-9-9, it proposes the elimination of income taxes for individuals and corparations to be replaced with a national sales tax of about 23%. I am sure I don't have to explain to you how both regressive and job killing that has the potential to be.
I think there are plenty of flaws in the 9-9-9 as well, which your example sets out. I would suggest to you that if you make $10,000 a year losing $900 would be crippling. While if you make a million...and so on.
As one astute commentator put it, this plan is only a good idea if you believe that the poor and middle class are currently under taxed and you think that the very rich are over taxed. The rate at which these groups are accumulating wealth would seem to tell us otherwise.
That's right. Reduce the tax on the rich, raise the overall tax burden on the working class along with the necessary cuts in what government can provide and things will be just right.
It must be nice to be king.
This solution would only make the current problem of massive upwards wealth distribution, worse.
I think you missed 27leaffan's sarcasm--I'm pretty sure he agrees with you.
The rich really do need to be taxed more than the not so fortunate and the 999 plan is simply social injustice. A flat across the board tax is not fair in a progressive society. The "rich" can be viewed as individuals who have disproportionately benefited from a country's infrastructure. By infrastructure I don't only mean the physical roads, bridges, telecommunication etc. that make commerce possible in a developed nation, but also the constant supply of educated/trained individuals a society generates. These things are all enabled by TAXES paid by past and present citizens. There is nothing unfair about expecting those who have benefited more from such an arrangement to also pay more. Their success of course should be rewarded and valued, but they should also be expected to contribute more to maintaining the very arrangements that enabled their great fortunes.
Most GOPers have lots of Greek in them.
GOPers consider getting Greeked the regular SOP!....:Eek:
NO SHIT SHERLOCK! That doesn't make it wrong though.
Apparently it's done in the US and often many many of the other top 10 countries in the world, who seem to do it better than the US.
If the US government hadn't paid for the jobs in various regions of the US, police teachers nurses and such, how many more citizens would have lost there jobs?
Then why weren't you bellyaching when Dubya & his DICK did it in Iraq???....
Because I have no problem with killing your heroes.
What economsts? The link is to an article by Bruce Bartlett who held senoir policy positions in the Reagan and H. W. Bush administrations and his take on Cain's plan. Try and take the tine to read it, it's not that hard to understand.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/
As my experience has been that hardly anybody here reads more than 2 lines of any article or
commentary (and Papa less than that), I have taken the liberty to copy the conclusion of Bruce Bartlett's analysis:
Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.
