Debate presents crucial GOP test

PrintSmith wrote: The federal income tax is in addition to the privilege to be employed taxes that are also withheld from every dollar of income the middle income earners are paying. Currently those taxes are 4.2% for OASDI and 1.45% for Medicare, bringing the total tax on income levied by the federal government to more than the 9% proposed by Cain. That 4.2% includes the recent 2% tax cut. The tax rate under Bush was 6.2% and it will return to that rate unless Congress extends the tax cut.

As far as the sales tax goes, the evil rich folks are spending a lot more money in dollars even if their spending is less as a percentage of their total income. Think of the revenue generated when those evil folks purchase their fancy meals in restaurants, or buy expensive watches, necklaces, purses, earrings, cars, fur coats, hand tailored suits and handmade shoes, designer evening wear, yachts, private jets and all of the other things they spend the money they have stolen from the poor and working class on. If it's a sales tax they won't be able to take advantage of any special interest loopholes to avoid paying their fair share any longer. They will have to pay an additional 9% tax on their consumption just like the rest of us will. What could be more fair than that? They will end up paying a lot more in sales taxes than the average middle income earner because they buy a lot more stuff and spend a lot more per item on that stuff than your typical middle income earner does.

There are different ways to look at this, but here is what I'm seeing. Currently the middle 20% pay about 6% effective federal income tax. In addition, they pay the 1.45% and 6.2% (eventually it will go back to 6.2%) in payroll taxes you mentioned. Cain in effect wants to raise that 6% to 9%, and replace the 7.65% payroll tax with a 9% sales tax. It doesn't add up to me that we could still pay for Social Security and Medicare. A 7.65% on all your income (up to $100K) generates far more money for the government than a 9% sales tax would because you pay sales tax on only a small part of your income and that is discretionary.

Anyway, my main point was that I don't see a study by the CBO or any economist showing that the Cain proposal would work, or what we would have to cut to pay for it. And when he kept saying "nine, nine, nine" in the debate it sounded more like a pitch from a salesman than what a presidential candidate would say. No specifics. Where did he come up with this plan?

So far as taxes in general go, I have no problem with lowering the business tax and getting rid of the "loopholes". But it should probably be closer to 20% rather than the 9% Cain proposed.

For individual taxes, I'd prefer something similar to the Ryan plan where there are few if any deductions, credits, or exemptions and just a couple of tax brackets. Keep it simple. My main disagreement with Ryan and Cain is that both proposed zero tax on capital gains. That's another huge cut for the high income people, and an invitation to avoid paying income tax by hiding your income as capital gains. I'd tax capital gains at a lower rate as we do now since you are taking risk.

And no, I don't want both a federal income tax and a federal sales tax. It becomes way too complicated. The Fair Tax people proposed a constitutional admendment to eliminate the income tax before implementing their sales tax. Cain wants both. Obama seemed to be sending out trial balloons several months ago about adding a sales tax (VAT) as well, but that seems to of gone away since it wouldn't be very popular.

pineinthegrass wrote: There are different ways to look at this, but here is what I'm seeing. Currently the middle 20% pay about 6% effective federal income tax. In addition, they pay the 1.45% and 6.2% (eventually it will go back to 6.2%) in payroll taxes you mentioned. Cain in effect wants to raise that 6% to 9%, and replace the 7.65% payroll tax with a 9% sales tax. It doesn't add up to me that we could still pay for Social Security and Medicare. A 7.65% on all your income (up to $100K) generates far more money for the government than a 9% sales tax would because you pay sales tax on only a small part of your income and that is discretionary.

And if those were the only ways in which you are currently taxed by the federal government, you might have a point, but the reality is much different than this. In addition to the 6% effective income tax and the 7.65% privilege to be employed tax that the federal government levies, there are any number of taxes that you pay that remain unaccounted for, the federal tax on each gallon of fuel being one such instance. When you start adding up all of those taxes that you are not figuring into the mix, it quickly becomes clear that you are being taxed at a higher rate than a 6% effective rate on your income that you are citing for middle income earners, perhaps as much as double that amount.

PrintSmith wrote: And if those were the only ways in which you are currently taxed by the federal government, you might have a point, but the reality is much different than this. In addition to the 6% effective income tax and the 7.65% privilege to be employed tax that the federal government levies, there are any number of taxes that you pay that remain unaccounted for, the federal tax on each gallon of fuel being one such instance. When you start adding up all of those taxes that you are not figuring into the mix, it quickly becomes clear that you are being taxed at a higher rate than a 6% effective rate on your income that you are citing for middle income earners, perhaps as much as double that amount.

The link I gave also shows the total federal effective taxes paid. For the middle 20%, it's about 17.6% (vs. about 6.3% for just federal income tax). But Cain was only talking about a 9% income tax, so I assume many of those other federal taxes will still apply other than SS and Medicare payroll taxes which I read on his website he would eliminate.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

So bottom line is who really knows the details of his plan or where he pulled it from? But it still looks like a tax increase for the lower and mid income to me, and a tax cut for the wealthy. And it's not clear SS and Medicare would be sufficiently funded.

Good one.

Saw an opening band called Dawes before the Alison Krauss and Union Station concert in Beaver Creek. They could have been named Bed Head Hair Band.

FACT CHECK: Perry, Romney twist records in debate

When Mitt Romney and Rick Perry thumped their chests over their job-creation records as governor during the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, they left the bad parts out.

Yes, employment has grown by more than 1 million since Perry took office in Texas. But a lot of those jobs are not well paid.

True, unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent when Romney was Massachusetts governor. But the state's employment growth was among the nation's worst.

A look at some of the claims in the debate, and how they compare with the facts:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-perry- ... 56685.html

WayneLeeH wrote: FACT CHECK: Perry, Romney twist records in debate

When Mitt Romney and Rick Perry thumped their chests over their job-creation records as governor during the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, they left the bad parts out.

Yes, employment has grown by more than 1 million since Perry took office in Texas. But a lot of those jobs are not well paid.

True, unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent when Romney was Massachusetts governor. But the state's employment growth was among the nation's worst.

A look at some of the claims in the debate, and how they compare with the facts:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-perry- ... 56685.html

I saw that too, but didn't think it was that significant.

If you have low unemployment at 4.7% as Romney said, doesn't it follow that you will have worse job growth than a state with higher unemployment? It's kind of like complaining a rich person pays less a percentage of his income on a ham sandwich than a lower income person does.

And Perry's claim that 95% of his new jobs are above minimum wage hasn't been studied as I recall that article saying. So we don't really know if it's true or not. If not supported, agree he shouldn't of made the claim, though.

But playing the game of complaining new jobs created are just low income jobs is a game both parties have been playing at least since the 90's. I think any job created is better than no job at all.

[youtube:3654f1oa][/youtube:3654f1oa]

rofllol :rofl rofllol :rofl

Somehow, I think you've captured it....