But one of the big D arguments against it is that it does not produce the revenue that the current system does. But the current system does not produce enough and does things like spending trillions of dollars in order to jump start the economy so that there is more revenue from which to extract tax funds.
I just find it interesting that when Cain answers this concern, he says the same thing, that by having a better system, the economy will get better and taxes will go up.
Same system, different levers, that's all.
Does seem to me that if we free up all the accountants not producing anything, just helping us process paperwork, that a simpler plan would jump start the economy right off by allowing these people to do something that produces wealth rather than just process it. I mean, we don't just want employment, that is short lived, we want employment that creates wealth...right?
Great point. Even it you taxed the 1%'s like Obama wants to, we would still have a massive debt load every year. None of the Dem apologists want to admit that this is a spending problem, not a revenue issue.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Other than the words sounding simple, I don't see how the 9-9-9 plan makes things simpler at all.
You still have an income tax, although I'll agree that it is a much simpler one. But add a new national sales tax and what appears to be a business VAT tax then it seems to make things even more complicated to me.
Why not just make the current federal income tax much less complicated. Get rid of deductions and credits, and just have 2 or 3 tax brackets. I'd keep some simple exemptions to protect the working poor, though.
Why not make it simpler still and have only one tax bracket at 15% regardless of how the money is earned or how much or how little of it you make? The only deduction you get to take would be a dollar for dollar reduction of your income for every dollar of money you donated to charities. The reason I include that one deduction is that when you give money to charity it isn't money you derive benefit from, which is why it would be excluded from being taxed as personal income. Not non-profit organizations, true charitable ones of the kind that feed, clothe and shelter the poor or that respond to natural disasters to set up shelters and take care of the folks that have lost everything they owned in a flood, or a hurricane or a wildfire.
Get rid of all the taxes except for the income taxes on individuals and be done with it. Every citizen of every state pays the same "fair share" of their income for the general government regardless of how much or how little they earn. What could possible be more fair than that?
I'm tired of righties claiming that the Democrats don't think we have a spending problem, only a revenue problem. It just isn't true. YES we have a spending problem, but we also have a revenue problem. We can cut our deficit faster by BOTH cutting spending AND increasing revenue. Time is money folks, and we need to do everything we can to bring our deficit down. Just like a family trying to get out from under credit card debt, they need to cut back as much as possible and if necessary take on a second job to increase their income till the debt is paid. There is a lot of interest associated with our debt, the faster we pay it off by using every means we can....including increasing revenue, the sooner we get back on a sound financial footing. Basic economics.
archer wrote: I'm tired of righties claiming that the Democrats don't think we have a spending problem, only a revenue problem. It just isn't true. YES we have a spending problem, but we also have a revenue problem. We can cut our deficit faster by BOTH cutting spending AND increasing revenue. Time is money folks, and we need to do everything we can to bring our deficit down. Just like a family trying to get out from under credit card debt, they need to cut back as much as possible and if necessary take on a second job to increase their income till the debt is paid. There is a lot of interest associated with our debt, the faster we pay it off by using every means we can....including increasing revenue, the sooner we get back on a sound financial footing. Basic economics.
You may admit the country has a spending problem but your party politicians don't. Just a few months ago, Sen. Harry Reid was against cutting cowboy poetry subsidies. (And I admit when the Republicans were in power, they weren't too concerned about cutting spending either.)
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: I'm tired of righties claiming that the Democrats don't think we have a spending problem, only a revenue problem. It just isn't true. YES we have a spending problem, but we also have a revenue problem. We can cut our deficit faster by BOTH cutting spending AND increasing revenue. Time is money folks, and we need to do everything we can to bring our deficit down. Just like a family trying to get out from under credit card debt, they need to cut back as much as possible and if necessary take on a second job to increase their income till the debt is paid. There is a lot of interest associated with our debt, the faster we pay it off by using every means we can....including increasing revenue, the sooner we get back on a sound financial footing. Basic economics.
You may admit the country has a spending problem but your party politicians don't. Just a few months ago, Sen. Harry Reid was against cutting cowboy poetry subsidies. (And I admit when the Republicans were in power, they weren't too concerned about cutting spending either.)
I have seen a change in Congress...... maybe not because they wanted too....but the numbers don't lie, and they are actually starting to read the numbers and realize that this is a crisis. Both parties are guilty of putting party before the good of the economy, first it was the democrats who wouldn't cut enough....now it's the Republicans who seem so afraid of the Tea Party they too will not do what is necessary to bring our national debt under control. Cut spending and increase revenue, it's the only solution that makes sense.
PrintSmith wrote: Why not make it simpler still and have only one tax bracket at 15% regardless of how the money is earned or how much or how little of it you make? The only deduction you get to take would be a dollar for dollar reduction of your income for every dollar of money you donated to charities.
I've said this before, but I'll ask you. Currently about 2/3rds of Social Security recipients pay zero federal income tax. Without Social Security, about 50% of seniors would be living in poverty. What you propose would be a 15% reduction in their Social Security benefit and a huge tax cut for the wealthy. And oh, it would also be a huge tax increase for the middle class as well who currently pay an effective income tax of about 7%.
I have heard a lot of things, not sure if even Cain knows what it includes and what it doesn't....but like our current tax code, once you start with the deductions, or credits, or exemptions then it all goes down hill till the tax code is 6 inches thick. A 999 plan is so fundamentally unfair to the poor and the middle class that there will need to be all kinds of exceptions...
Start with a graduated simple system, and the need for exemptions is greatly diminished. We absolutely have to trash our current code, but there is nothing to be gained by replacing it with something that simply will not work.
You may admit the country has a spending problem but your party politicians don't. Just a few months ago, Sen. Harry Reid was against cutting cowboy poetry subsidies. (And I admit when the Republicans were in power, they weren't too concerned about cutting spending either.)
