Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

Few questions since you guys are to cowardly to ask and answer the obvious tough questions.


1. Are you planning on mandating the payroll tax be given to employees as bonuses as part of the tax code overhaul or will you leave that up to the employers?

2. What about grandma and grandpa who don't have income? Where are their bonuses going to come from or should I say their medicare and social security?

3. Let's not forgot about the future of our children too...where the hell is the money to pay down the debt going to come from? I am guessing not from the plummeting tax revenue.

4. What if you're disabled? Are you on your own or will there be any safety net for you?

Ill answear a little differently:

1) Absolutely it has be a mandate when initially rolled out.

2) Currently 50% or 85% (depending on AGI) of SS, and i think medicare, income is counted towards your current taxable income and then taxed. These numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect a "bonus" to seniors, simply because AARP and the senior voting block is powerful enough to dictate it.

3) Revenues may not go down like some say. Some reports say its going up, some say going down while Cain says it will be revenue neutral. The thing missing from Cain's plan are details, which he can finalize based off of the current public reaction. I will also add that capital gains and estates are currently not taxed under 999, so he has a couple easy revenue boosters to employee if needed. Plus if need be you could always tax income of the wealthy higher, nobody likes those guys anyways. So maybe 9/9/9 up until you make like 250k then its 20/9/9.

4) Im not really sure what you mean? Entitlement programs not part of the tax code will continue for disabled people just like food stamps will continue for poor people. Maybe youre talking about SS and Medicare. Though 999 doesn’t detail how these are funded theyre not going away, it would be politically impossible. As long as it’s a revenue neutral event and still pulls in 2.2 trillion then neither will go away and everyone’s happy. Cain also touts the Chilean Model for SS for fixing SS. Medicare is the much bigger issue but that will have to be dealt with anyways.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You're a fool. A damn fool....we all know it's the Stonecutters running sh**

for real tho.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Up to employers. However keep in mind that these taxes are already embedded in the cost of all the goods/services we use today, costs of goods/services before the FairTax Tax is added will go down significantly.

SS & Medicare stay as is. Social Security and Medicare programs are spending programs. FairTax is focused on revenues (tax collection) only. FairTax would be implemented to be revenue neutral, spending programs and fixing SS & Medicare are separate issues.

Also, for each Head of Household or each individual with SS card, a prebate check will be sent monthly to cover the cost of the embedded Federal tax on basic necessities using current HHS poverty level calculations.

The FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral. I would argue that with no corporate, capital gains, death, etc. taxes the climate for business expansion will be excellent and we will see increased revenues to the Fed. Worst case, the percentage of the FairTax would have to be increased to cover debt reduction. A balanced budget ammendment and fiscal discipline will allow us to put our financial house in order without increases to the FairTax % IMO.

Another revenue stream that FairTax catches is the underground economy. Folks getting paid "under the table", money from illegal activities, people paid in cash/tips that aren't claimed as income. Since the FairTax is embedded in products sold, when anyone buys a prodcut/service pays the tax, no matter where/how they made their money.

see #2

Wasn't "cowardly", just had to contribute to GDP this morning and help cover the costs of Obama's spending programs and Solyndra loans.

I did make an error in a previous post in the thread. The FairTax wouldn't be added on the price of a product at the cash register as an additional cost (exclusive), like a state sales tax. The FairTax would already be an embedded cost in the price of a good/service (inclusive).

Are we talking about the 999 plan or the FairTax? Regardless of which plan we are talking about I am under the impression that they would both eliminate the payroll tax which means there will be no deposits Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security bank accounts. Ore maybe we're talking about the SS33 hybrid plan?

If one thing is fairly certain it is that if given the option of not matching employee payroll contribution most employees would probably choose to count the money and put it in their back pockets much like the airline companies did with the airline surcharge. I am not interested in doing going to do Arthur Anderson accounting here so unless you are fairly certain individuals are going to get that money in their pockets for sure you shouldn't count that money as income.

The idea of the cost of goods going down is also far fetched. It is more likely that companies would invest their savings in expanding their business or rewarding its investors. That's what I would do and if I were to lower the prices of my goods it wouldn't be by much and for long. Now if if business is booming and my demand grows I can see my price being elastic but where is this new consumption going to come from? Maybe China and India.

Another revenue stream that FairTax catches is the underground economy. Folks getting paid "under the table", money from illegal activities, people paid in cash/tips that aren't claimed as income. Since the FairTax is embedded in products sold, when anyone buys a prodcut/service pays the tax, no matter where/how they made their money.

To think the FairTax can capture revenue from under the table payments is ludicrous. This is by far the stupidest selling point I have ever heard regarding the FairTax. How are you going to count this money if it's unclaimed?

The FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral. I would argue that with no corporate, capital gains, death, etc. taxes the climate for business expansion will be excellent and we will see increased revenues to the Fed. Worst case, the percentage of the FairTax would have to be increased to cover debt reduction. A balanced budget ammendment and fiscal discipline will allow us to put our financial house in order without increases to the FairTax % IMO.

Designed to be revenue neutral? At what percentage and what date is this revenue nutrality to be had? What do we do in times of war? Increase that tax rate? The details is all in the math. I am not comfortable signing on unless we have credible figures in place.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are we talking about the 999 plan or the FairTax? Regardless of which plan we are talking about I am under the impression that they would both eliminate the payroll tax which means there will be no deposits Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security bank accounts. Ore maybe we're talking about the SS33 hybrid plan?

I am talking about FairTax, this is a documented plan that's been on the table for a few years now. Cain supports FairTax. I haven't read enough about this 9-9-9 to know all the details, but I believe Cain should just go straight to FairTax without all the 999 mess.

Anywho, we could go back and forth with page long posts here but I suggest you go to the FairTax site and take a look at the books I mentioned to read the details of each. They will explain much better than me.

In short, FairTax is simply a replacment for the current system of collecting federal taxes, nothing more. The current estimated percentage of embedded federal sales tax needed to be revenue neutral is approximately 23%. Currently there are approximately 22%, of embedded federal taxes in the final cost of a good/service today. That's how the final cost of an item to the retail consumer only raises slightly with FairTax.

If one thing is fairly certain it is that if given the option of not matching employee payroll contribution most employees would probably choose to count the money and put it in their back pockets much like the airline companies did with the airline surcharge. I am not interested in doing going to do Arthur Anderson accounting here so unless you are fairly certain individuals are going to get that money in their pockets for sure you shouldn't count that money as income.

The SS & Medicare payroll taxes are part of the embedded tax in a good/service. These will be filtered out by the market, if companies want to remain competitive.

To think the FairTax can capture revenue from under the table payments is ludicrous. This is by far the stupidest selling point I have ever heard regarding the FairTax. How are you going to count this money if it's unclaimed?

Remember FairTax is an embedded tax collected at the point of sale. Everyone has to buy goods/services.

What do we do in times of war? Increase that tax rate?

In the case of a declared war, approved by Congress, yes. It's been done before. If not, then POTUS/DoD need to figure it out with their yearly appropriations.

[12thMan]

Have either of you guys seen Politifact's breakdown of Cain's 999 plan. It's a pretty straight forward comparison to the current tax code, but there are still many details that haven't been revealed yet.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Have either of you guys seen Politifact's breakdown of Cain's 999 plan. It's a pretty straight forward comparison to the current tax code, but there are still many details that haven't been revealed yet.

I have not, but I'll take a look.

EDIT: Just got done on Politifact and I'm coming away from that and briefly reading some critics analysis on the 999 plan, thinking it needs some serious tweaks. If the ultimate goal is FairTax, run on that and go straight to it. It think this 999 interim step is a mistake and an unnecessary complication.

[dmek25]

Study: '9-9-9' Raises Taxes on 84 Pct.

Low- and middle-income families hit hardest. Rich Win Most

[12thMan]

Cain had trouble, lots of trouble, explaining his plan tonight.

[saden1]

You don't have to be that smart to know that any flat tax is regressive towards the lower earners in the income bracket. If I were Cain I would have trouble explaining how the total taxes on goods would be around 17 percent to the largest segment of voters who consume most of their income.



TTF

[dmek25]

quit mudding the water? 9 plus 8 equals 17 in any school...

[Chico23231]

Poor Newt. I mean, its getting embarressing now.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

You don't have to be that smart to know that any flat tax is regressive towards the lower earners in the income bracket. If I were Cain I would have trouble explaining how the total taxes on goods would be around 17 percent to the largest segment of voters who consume most of their income.



TTF

Well when you pay nothing and then pay something your going to take the largest hit.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well when you pay nothing and then pay something your going to take the largest hit.

They pay nothing? They already pay sales tax, property taxes, and state income taxes. I mean, it's not their fault that when it's all said and done they make so little income and consume most of their income to live a normal life.

Screwing people who make 40K or less isn't a winning formula and will hardly generate any meaningful income for the government seeing how 16 million of those who pay no taxes are the elderly and the plan calls for no taxes on the elderly at all.

I hear under Cain's plan, Buffet would pay roughly 1% income tax plus a few thousand dollars for his food, lawn maintenance and travel expenses...oh and that big screen TV that will be charged at 17%. LOL...ludicrous!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

They pay nothing? They already pay sales tax, property taxes, and state income taxes. I mean, it's not their fault that when it's all said and done they make so little income and consume most of their income to live a normal life.

Screwing people who make 40K or less isn't a winning formula and will hardly generate any meaningful income for the government seeing how 16 million of those who pay no taxes are the elderly and the plan calls for no taxes on the elderly at all.

I hear under Cain's plan, Buffet would pay roughly 1% income tax plus a few thousand dollars for his food, lawn maintenance and travel expenses...oh and that big screen TV that will be charged at 17%. LOL...ludicrous!

Screwing seniors was Bill Clinton when he added the tax to SS.

You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.
Use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 703 shown on the back of the Social Security Benefit Statement, SSA Form 1099, to determine if any of your benefits may be taxable.
Social Security has no authority to withhold state or local taxes from your benefit. Many states and local authorities do not tax Social Security benefits. However, you should contact your state or local taxing authority for more information.

Ludicrous, is the example you used and our current tax system.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Screwing seniors was Bill Clinton when he added the tax to SS.

You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.
Use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 703 shown on the back of the Social Security Benefit Statement, SSA Form 1099, to determine if any of your benefits may be taxable.
Social Security has no authority to withhold state or local taxes from your benefit. Many states and local authorities do not tax Social Security benefits. However, you should contact your state or local taxing authority for more information.

Ludicrous, is the example you used and our current tax system.

I agree with you...taxing people who have minuscule income that is distributed by the government itself is idiotic.

A lot of people seem to have remarkable faith in the market despite what has transpired the last few years...amazing!