[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-September-28, 05:47, said:

i know this is a perry/obama thread, but does anyone have thoughts on herman cain? specifically his 9/9/9 plan

Haven't seen many details, but my first impression is that it would worsen the deficit by reducing revenue and would hurt the economy because the additional 9% sales tax would depress sales. What's your take?

[luke warm]

i actually think it would increase revenues, given that almost all deductions would be eliminated... i'm not a big fan of a nat'l sales tax, unless it excludes certain necessary items (such as food and gasoline)... but 9 individual and 9 corporate, with no deductions, seems to me to actually increase revenue...

[cherdano]

luke warm, on 2011-September-28, 07:43, said:

but 9 individual and 9 corporate, with no deductions, seems to me to actually increase revenue...

Well it may seem that way to you, but it is not the case in reality.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-September-28, 05:47, said:

i know this is a perry/obama thread, but does anyone have thoughts on herman cain? specifically his 9/9/9 plan

I think its a perfect example how modern "Conservatives" are actually radicals in the Jacobean sense. Burke must be spinning in his grave.

Cain's plan calls for

1. Complete elimination of the capital gains tax
2. Complete elimination of the estate tax
3. A completely flat tax on income

I am ALL for significant tax code simplification. I'd be happy to see a complete elimination of income tax deductions. (If the government wants to subsidize things - say home ownership, eductation, what have you - its a lot more efficient to do so via direct payment rather than manipulating the tax code). However, there is no reason why this goal can't be achieved in conjunction with a graduated income tax.

[Winstonm]

The Cain plan IMO is simply more of the same general "the rich will provide for all if we don't tax them" trickle-down thinking that has shaped policy almost without interference since Reagan.

Isn't it about time we looked at the results of policies rather than the intuitive belief in the ideology backing those policies?

Information from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Sept. 27, 2011:

Quote

Real GDP grew 3.6 percent on average from 1947 to 1984 but only 2.6 percent after 1984. Even more relevant for understanding the jobless recoveries is the fact that output growth is getting slower during the early phase of recoveries.

The average (annualized) growth rate per quarter for the first two years of recoveries has been declining over time, especially since 1984 (table 1). Before 1984, GDP grew faster than the trend during the first two years of the recovery (4.7 percent relative to 3.6 percent for the whole cycle). However, after 1984 the average growth early on declined to 2.8 percent (relative to 2.6 percent). The slowing growth trend after 1984 is the real puzzle.

The correlation appears justified with the change in policies. The question to answer is whether or not the chance in policies caused the decrease in GDP and subsequent slower-growth recoveries.

[kenberg]

Having steeper income tax rates as we move up the income ladder is one of the few things that I find unambiguously clear.

Both in absolute terms and in percentage terms it makes sense for me to pay a higher rate than someone who is struggling to get by, and it makes sense for someone who is very well off, much more so than I am, to pay at a higher rate than I do.

I just don't understand the counter arguments. Both life and this country have been good to me, the country needs help, some are in a better position to help than are others. So we should get in and help.

There was a letter to the editor this morning from some really smart feller suggesting that those of us who feel this way should just donate money to the government. Very clever. Not. I am happily prepared to do my part. In collaboration with others.

[luke warm]

cherdano, on 2011-September-28, 07:57, said:

Well it may seem that way to you, but it is not the case in reality.

how much in federal taxes did g.e., which earned over $14B ($9B offshore, btw) pay last year? with no deductions, how much would they pay at 9%?

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2011-September-28, 10:04, said:

Both in absolute terms and in percentage terms it makes sense for me to pay a higher rate than someone who is struggling to get by, and it makes sense for someone who is very well off, much more so than I am, to pay at a higher rate than I do.

i don't think someone "struggling to get by" should pay anything, and i believe they actually don't (for the most part) pay anything... of course, it depends on how you define "getting by"

Quote

There was a letter to the editor this morning from some really smart feller suggesting that those of us who feel this way should just donate money to the government. Very clever. Not. I am happily prepared to do my part. In collaboration with others.

there are people who actually do what they consider to be their part... irs.gov has a link one can follow to donate money, if one feels strongly about it

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-September-28, 10:04, said:

There was a letter to the editor this morning from some really smart feller suggesting that those of us who feel this way should just donate money to the government.

That suggestion has great appeal to the free lunch crowd: It's just one more way to get others to pick up the tab for them.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-September-28, 18:24, said:

That suggestion has great appeal to the free lunch crowd: It's just one more way to get others to pick up the tab for them.

that's possibly true, but it certainly has no appeal for those who want to tell others what their "fair share" is

[PassedOut]

Honest business people who have done well and love the US for the opportunity it provides agree that tax rates for the wealthy are too low. That drives the free lunchers crazy:

Quote

Advocates of higher taxes on the wealthy do not want to “punish” the successful. Buffett and Doug Edwards, a millionaire who asked Obama at a recent town hall event in California to raise his taxes, are saying that none of us succeeds solely because of personal effort. We are all lucky to have been born in — or, for immigrants, admitted to — a country where the rule of law is strong, where property is safe, where a vast infrastructure has been built over generations, where our colleges and universities are the envy of the world, and where government protects our liberties.

Wealthy people, by definition, have done better within this system than other people have. They ought to be willing to join Buffett and Edwards in arguing that for this reason alone, it is common sense, not class jealousy, to ask the most fortunate to pay taxes at higher tax rates than other people do. It is for this heresy that Buffett is being harassed.

Although the idea of acting for the common good goes against the grain of those constrained by "it-is-all-about-me" world views, each of us who lives comfortably now does so because others before us have promoted the common good. It's time to abandon pettiness and raise tax rates so our children and grandchildren can live well too.

[luke warm]

refresh my memory please... do you define "free lunchers" as those who want something for nothing?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-September-30, 06:11, said:

refresh my memory please... do you define "free lunchers" as those who want something for nothing?

No need to rehash that. But if you see things differently, there is plenty of space here for you to state your views and your reasons.

[luke warm]

i'm not saying i disagree, i'm just wondering how far you're willing to take your definition... this country is made up of a *lot* of people who not only want but actually obtain something for nothing... are all such wrong to do that?

and fwiw, i think perry is about the worst person the reps could nominate... in a debate with obama the only one who would actually win is gingrich, and he's very unlikely to get the nomination... i think cain is starting to move up a little, but he too has too far to go... i do like his bumper stickers, though... "cain and unable" ... "beat obama with a cain" ... and, in a takeoff on obama's slogan, "yes we cain"

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-September-30, 15:32, said:

and fwiw, i think perry is about the worst person the reps could nominate... in a debate with obama the only one who would actually win is gingrich, and he's very unlikely to get the nomination... i think cain is starting to move up a little, but he too has too far to go... i do like his bumper stickers, though... "cain and unable" ... "beat obama with a cain" ... and, in a takeoff on obama's slogan, "yes we cain"

Yes, looks like my prediction that Perry would stomp Romney was pretty far off the mark.

Cain's slogan's are amusing, for sure, but I don't see him getting the nod. On the other hand, my thinking that way probably means he has a shot...

[beatrix45]

Rick is a real man. All the rest are faggots.

[Winstonm]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry continues his Jerry-Springer-guest diatribes as ABC news reports:

Quote

At a house party in Manchester, Perry said that ending the drug war in Mexico “may require our military in Mexico.”

Let's see. End Social Security. Eliminate taxes. Rescind healthcare changes. And send the troops to Mexico. Yep, that ought to do it.

[luke warm]

well it's not like we don't send our troops elsewhere out of nat'l interest

[blackshoe]

And it's not like we haven't sent them to Mexico before.

[luke warm]

good point