Meet the real Herman Cain

[CarmelHP]

Well unfortunately the way it is set up income tax is part of our lives. If some have to pay, all should have to pay. Then maybe there would be more of a push to get gummint back to where it should be (which would get back to not needing income taxes to fund everything).

So...we're going to fundamentally change the tax system but we just have to accept the way income tax is set up? And what you wrote made sense to you?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I get why he is doing the 999 plan. It's a stepping stone to the fairtax. It's more pallatable than a 23% national sales tax that does away with ALL other taxes.

I agree with the fairtax minus the prebate section. I don't think the 9-9-9 plan is the right path to take to get there though.

 

[CarmelHP]

I get why he is doing the 999 plan. It's a stepping stone to the fairtax. It's more pallatable than a 23% national sales tax that does away with ALL other taxes.

I agree with the fairtax minus the prebate section. I don't think the 9-9-9 plan is the right path to take to get there though.

We don't need a FairTax or a 9-9-9 plan. We need a 0-0-0 plan.

 

[ViperJock]

We don't need a FairTax or a 9-9-9 plan. We need a 0-0-0 plan.

As much as I would love to keep ALL my hard earned money, how do you propose we pay for things we actually need such as roads, defense, etc? Some things such as education can go to the states only (which would probably raise local taxes to some degree) but I don't see how the Fed government even in its constitutional format can survive without taxes of some kind? If you have a plan, please notify the authorities immediately!

 

[ATOMonkey]

Under my 0-0-0 Plan, Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain but, more importantly, the programs could be salvaged with savings from foreign spending cuts. Other programs can be funded by excise taxes, fees and tariffs already available.
If there is still a federal shortfall, any additional taxes should be levied against the states. Let's take the tax burden off individuals and place it on governments for once. I think a federal tax of 10-20 percent on all state budgets should more than suffice. Based on current state budgets, such a tax could generate hundreds of billions of additional federal revenue. Of course, state legislatures will try to increase their own taxes to shift the burden back to individuals. Yet constituents can keep local assemblies much more accountable than a distant federal government.


Read more: The 0-0-0 Plan The 0-0-0 Plan​

Same stuff, new label. It keeps payroll tax, calls sales tax an excise tax, and encourages tariffs which will increase cost of living. Any additional revenue will be generated by the states through income and sales tax.

Calling it a 0-0-0 tax really isn't entirely accurate now, is it?

 

[steveh_131]

Politicians-Sucking

Soldiers-Making a living

I think this is a silly generalization. Judge a person's worth by the results of their work.

I'd rather pay a thousand Ron Pauls than one SemperFiUSMC.

 

[ATOMonkey]

As much as I would love to keep ALL my hard earned money, how do you propose we pay for things we actually need such as roads, defense, etc? Some things such as education can go to the states only (which would probably raise local taxes to some degree) but I don't see how the Fed government even in its constitutional format can survive without taxes of some kind? If you have a plan, please notify the authorities immediately!

You don't get to keep you money. It's just taken by different people at different times with the 0-0-0 plan.

 

[ViperJock]

You don't get to keep you money. It's just taken by different people at different times with the 0-0-0 plan.

So do I get to keep more? whats the point? A rose by any other name....

 

[ATOMonkey]

So do I get to keep more? whats the point? A rose by any other name....

Depends on your state.

0-0-0 proposes up to at 20% tax on each state budget. So, if your state is fiscally conservative, or just flat out broke (low revenue), then you could keep more.

 

[CarmelHP]

You don't get to keep you money. It's just taken by different people at different times with the 0-0-0 plan.

Can't have federalism, can we? Is it so awful to have the states decide how to collect taxes and cut out federal tax collections? Maybe the states might decide to flex some muscle if they had to collect the tax. I sometimes wonder just how committed to changing anything people actually are.

 

[ATOMonkey]

You can, it's just reverse of the current situation.

Right now we tax it at the Federal level and trickle it down to the local level. The new plan would tax it at the local/state level and trickle it up to the Federal level. Each is just as inefficient as the other as it relies on a lot of overhead to make it happen. Plus the 0-0-0 plan keeps payroll tax, and adds new excise and import taxes.

The fairtax is one tax at the federal level to fund federal programs. The main point of the Boortz plan was to increase efficiency in tax collecting (and thus reduce burden) and to make government more transparent with ONE tax at ONE rate.

 

[CarmelHP]

Same stuff, new label. It keeps payroll tax, calls sales tax an excise tax, and encourages tariffs which will increase cost of living. Any additional revenue will be generated by the states through income and sales tax.

Calling it a 0-0-0 tax really isn't entirely accurate now, is it?

How's a 0% income tax keeping a payroll (income tax withholding) tax?

 

[ATOMonkey]

How's a 0% income tax keeping a payroll (income tax withholding) tax?

I'm just going off of what the article said.

Under my 0-0-0 Plan, Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain ...

 

[CarmelHP]

You can, it's just reverse of the current situation.

Right now we tax it at the Federal level and trickle it down to the local level. The new plan would tax it at the local/state level and trickle it up to the Federal level. Each is just as inefficient as the other as it relies on a lot of overhead to make it happen. Plus the 0-0-0 plan keeps payroll tax, and adds new excise and import taxes.

How? You don't next federal tax withholding or reporting; you don't need returns; you don't need swarms of agents to audit or effect collections on individuals. States already collect taxes. This would be another expenditure that they decide how to fund or how to reduce federal spending. Do you know what payroll tax is?

The fairtax is one tax at the federal level to fund federal programs. The main point of the Boortz plan was to increase efficiency in tax collecting (and thus reduce burden) and to make government more transparent with ONE tax at ONE rate.

So, every business and every transaction has to be policed to ensure that the tax is being collected. Constant monitoring is necessary to catch cheating. How about the Feds just NOT tax anyone personally and leave it up to the states to decide how to provide the funds?

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm just going off of what the article said.

Where? I've looked, where's it say it? I'm asking what you're talking about since that would seem to be a contradiction. I haven't found what you're referring to.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Where? I've looked, where's it say it? I'm asking what you're talking about since that would seem to be a contradiction. I haven't found what you're referring to.

here

When Herman Cain was announced as the next speaker at the Florida Presidency V Straw Poll last week, the crowd thundered in ovation. I leaned over to an audience member, "He's going to place in the top three." Cain went on to capture first in the contest. Since then, he has enjoyed a rather nice media surge as Republicans take a second look at a candidate once thought to be destined for neglect.
One cannot deny Cain's impressive leadership skills. His interview and debate performances have revealed a cunning marketing mind adept at using conviction and wit to remain competitive in the presidential contest. Cain's personal narrative of overcoming adversity, whether financial or medical, through sheer grit is compelling. Many are beginning to rightly admire his pragmatic problem-solver approach to difficult political issues.
Indeed, there is much to like about the man. However, his campaign centerpiece, the memorable 9-9-9 Plan, is not the solution to America's economic woes.
Cain's proposal is quite specific:
Replace the current federal tax code with a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent national sales tax and a 9 percent corporate income tax.
Simple enough; 9-9-9 might actually be a step up from our current situation. But, then again, we're talking about the federal government. Its main problem is spending. Cain's 9-9-9 Plan would sustain the same general level of federal revenue. It would do nothing to address the national debt crisis we face. For example, the plan does nothing to curb the hidden inflation the Federal Reserve System causes when it creates money to fund new programs.
The plan has more problems. A national sales tax is the last thing the country needs with ever-increasing rates of inflation. With the price of food, energy and other needs rising, a sales tax would compound the financial burden of millions of poor and middle-class Americans.
Given historical precedent of federal tax policies, there is a very real chance that a 9 percent sales tax would rise rapidly to sustain future Washington spending binges. Remember, the federal income tax rate was originally set at a maximum rate of 7 percent. Expecting Congress to jealously guard any hike in sales or income taxes is just naïve.
So, while I admire Cain's attempted solution, I will offer one better. I call it …
The 0-0-0 Plan.
It goes something like this.
Federal personal income tax: None
National sales tax: None
Corporate income tax: None
Say it with me. None, None, None!
Naysayers will likely note that without those taxes, there will not be enough revenue to cover current spending. That's precisely the point. As Cain frequently notes, the first step in problem-solving is to identify the target. The target must be our crippling national debt.
Tax tinkering that enables current spending will do nothing to prevent the ever-inflating dollar bubble. Once the bubble pops, paychecks and entitlements will not be worth the paper on which they're printed. Americans will face an unprecedented level of economic misery. To prevent this crisis, we must dramatically reduce foreign and domestic spending.
(Column continues below)​

By abolishing personal and corporate income taxes, job creation would explode. People prosper when they enjoy the full fruits of their labor.
Under my 0-0-0 Plan, Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain but, more importantly, the programs could be salvaged with savings from foreign spending cuts. Other programs can be funded by excise taxes, fees and tariffs already available.
If there is still a federal shortfall, any additional taxes should be levied against the states. Let's take the tax burden off individuals and place it on governments for once. I think a federal tax of 10-20 percent on all state budgets should more than suffice. Based on current state budgets, such a tax could generate hundreds of billions of additional federal revenue. Of course, state legislatures will try to increase their own taxes to shift the burden back to individuals. Yet constituents can keep local assemblies much more accountable than a distant federal government.
Now, I am under no illusions that such sweeping reforms will be easy to execute. Washington will kick and scream all the way. We'll experience acute pain, too. But the consequences of maintaining current spending levels will create deeper, longer-lasting poverty for all of us.
To accomplish the 0-0-0 Plan, we need masters of both communication and economics. Cain demonstrates the first but not the latter. Yet his and other recent figures' successes illustrate: America can embrace dramatic change when prompted by charismatic leaders. ​

David Hanson, 22, is a writer and public speaker. He is the founder of Hanson & Associates, a political communications firm in Florida. He is a fellow of the Moving Picture Institute. Contact him at david@hansonwins.com.​

Read more: The 0-0-0 Plan The 0-0-0 Plan​

​

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, every business and every transaction has to be policed to ensure that the tax is being collected. Constant monitoring is necessary to catch cheating. How about the Feds just NOT tax anyone personally and leave it up to the states to decide how to provide the funds?

The state already does that, regarding the monitoring of sales tax.

If you want to have the state collect the Fair tax, I'll get on board with you.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Having a variety of taxes means a variety of compliance with those taxes. Who's to say there wouldn't be exceptions to each excise or import tax as well? Excise taxes also pick winners and losers. Not a big fan.

One tax - one rate, on all retail. Easy peasy lemon squeezey.

 

[CarmelHP]

here

That's not payroll tax, which is the pay as you go income tax withholding. That's referring to FICA, which is a flat tax, by the way, up to the cap.

 

[ATOMonkey]

My bad. Either way, it's still an income tax.