Oh yes, I haven't seen a story about 9-9-9 in the last two hours, I was starting to get the shakes.

Tell us, Media, has anything changed? No? Cool.

...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

Herman Cain?

Hitler.

/There, I said it.

Robin Williams.

playblu: ...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

It's... I mean, it's basically just simple addition that this is true. Taxes on the self-employed would be 18% regardless of income. Work for someone else? 27%.

Its not fair that only 53% of Americans pay taxes.

EVERYONE should pay their fair share. If I buy a Mercedes, I would pay 9%. A single mother buying diapers would pay 9%. My morning latte? 9%. Grandma's Ensure? 9%

Fair is far.

playblu: ...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

Yes, who cares is it is a simple fact that you could figure out for your self. It is the evil liberals, so it can't be right.

But Citizens for Tax Justice suggests that the 9% business tax would effectively become a new form of payroll tax. The business tax would apply only to a company's revenue after investments, purchases and dividends paid to shareholders.

Looks like the only people being "given the business" here are the employees.

But Citizens for Tax Justice suggests that the 9% business tax would effectively become a new form of payroll tax. The business tax would apply only to a company's revenue after investments, purchases and dividends paid to shareholders.

While I know it isn't the point of the article, I think its important to note the fact that businesses would essentially lose all of their deductions except for investments, purchases and dividends and would have to start paying taxes on all of the rest of their expenses. It would absolutely devastate the vast majority of small businesses.

Also, Cain has indicated that purchases are only exempt if they are American made products. The modern production economy assembles virtually all products out of components made in other parts of the world. For example, an "American made" computer will have its processor assembled in China, it's video card in a plant in Malaysia, and so on, and only the final product assembled in the US.

When asked if such purchases (which is basically all of them) could be deducted, Cain said he had no idea.

vernonFL: Its not fair that only 53% of Americans pay taxes.

You forgot to couch this correctly. You need to say that only 53% of Americans pay federal income taxes for your manufactured outrage to be true.

Of course, to be fair as you put it, poor people shouldn't be paying for the roads and public park spaces and other infrastructure that they can't afford to enjoy. So I expect that you'll be in favour of 100% toll on all public roads to cover their maintenance, upkeep, and rental from the public which includes those 47%. I expect you'll also be in favour of a gas tax hike that covers 100% of all externalities caused by vehicles, including pollution and the foreign wars to secure oil.

After all, its only fair, as you've wisely suggested.

vernonFL: Its not fair that only 53% of Americans pay taxes.

EVERYONE should pay their fair share. If I buy a Mercedes, I would pay 9%. A single mother buying diapers would pay 9%. My morning latte? 9%. Grandma's Ensure? 9%

Fair is far.

You're trolling, right? Because that falls under sales tax. Which the poor and unemployed pay. As FAR more of a % of their income than people who bank (and therefore don't spend) most of their income.

playblu: ...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

Liberal math strikes again.

kingoomieiii: vernonFL: Its not fair that only 53% of Americans pay taxes.

EVERYONE should pay their fair share. If I buy a Mercedes, I would pay 9%. A single mother buying diapers would pay 9%. My morning latte? 9%. Grandma's Ensure? 9%

Fair is far.

You're trolling, right? Because that falls under sales tax. Which the poor and unemployed pay. As FAR more of a % of their income than people who bank (and therefore don't spend) most of their income.

So if they spend more of their income, 9% of their income becomes more than 9% of their income? That's some solid math there.

9 Pizza's with 9 Toppings for 9 Bucks each! _{(with the added benefit of raising taxes on the poor)}.

BravadoGT: So if they spend more of their income, 9% of their income becomes more than 9% of their income? That's some solid math there.

If you make $3,000 a month and spend, say, 40% of that ($1200- food bill plus clothes for three kids, easy) on sales-tax-eligible crap like clothes and food (in some states), at 10% sales tax, 4% of your income has been paid to sales tax.

If you make $25,000 a month and spend 8% of that ($2,000) on the same items, that's 0.8% of your income paid to sales tax.

GAT_00: playblu: ...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

Liberal math strikes again.

curious, isn't it? soon as you say something that doesn't agree with the GOP you immediately get called 'liberal' or 'left leaning'.

Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

yogaFLAME: Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

Submitter submitted in the Troll queue, so it's all good.

Weaver95: curious, isn't it? soon as you say something that doesn't agree with the GOP you immediately get called 'liberal' or 'left leaning'.

Amazing how many conservatives are now considered liberals these days.

Weaver95: GAT_00: playblu: ...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

Liberal math strikes again.

curious, isn't it? soon as you say something that doesn't agree with the GOP you immediately get called 'liberal' or 'left leaning'.

Meh. It cuts both ways. If I say anything critical of the Democratic Party I get accused of being a conservative.

ShawnDoc: Weaver95: curious, isn't it? soon as you say something that doesn't agree with the GOP you immediately get called 'liberal' or 'left leaning'.

Amazing how many conservatives are now considered liberals these days.

It is.

kingoomieiii: BravadoGT: So if they spend more of their income, 9% of their income becomes more than 9% of their income? That's some solid math there.

If you make $3,000 a month and spend, say, 40% of that ($1200- food bill plus clothes for three kids, easy) on sales-tax-eligible crap like clothes and food (in some states), at 10% sales tax, 4% of your income has been paid to sales tax.

If you make $25,000 a month and spend 8% of that ($2,000) on the same items, that's 0.8% of your income paid to sales tax.

Ok, that's mostly correct. I was lazy and mistook "sales tax" as "income tax"

That being said--why does the left think state and local sales taxes are a great way to raise revenue to pay for government, but at the Federal level--it becomes an unfair tax on the poor?

As with any consumption tax, the evil rich will be paying the lion's share of the bill. Any sales tax would result in wealthy people paying a smaller percentage (unless they spent the same percent of their paycheck as the noble impoverished). So what percent would be fair then? 50%? 1%? Should it be progressive, and you bring your W2 to the grocery store so they know how much to charge you?

Shostie: Weaver95: GAT_00: playblu: ...according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank...

Color me shocked that they would "find this out".

Liberal math strikes again.

curious, isn't it? soon as you say something that doesn't agree with the GOP you immediately get called 'liberal' or 'left leaning'.

Meh. It cuts both ways. If I say anything critical of the Democratic Party I get accused of being a conservative.

I wonder how conservative I am now for trashing Obama so much.

ShawnDoc: Weaver95: curious, isn't it? soon as you say something that doesn't agree with the GOP you immediately get called 'liberal' or 'left leaning'.

Amazing how many conservatives are now considered liberals these days.

That's because there are now only two new classifications: Batshiat crazy Tea Party Republicans and Liberals.

gilgigamesh: While I know it isn't the point of the article, I think its important to note the fact that businesses would essentially lose all of their deductions except for investments, purchases and dividends and would have to start paying taxes on all of the rest of their expenses. It would absolutely devastate the vast majority of small businesses.

Unlikely. Of course, since the entirety of the "plan" consists of "NINE-NINE-NINE!11!" it's just speculation, but I have a feeling that businesses will be able to deduct operating expenses just as they do today.

It's moot anyway since Herman Cain has about as much chance of being elected President as I do.

/Where birf certicft Eddie Adams from Torrance, wher?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Unlikely. Of course, since the entirety of the "plan" consists of "NINE-NINE-NINE!11!" it's just speculation, but I have a feeling that businesses will be able to deduct operating expenses just as they do today.

But that isn't his plan. Its right there in the article: businesses can deduct dividends, purchases (only domestic, although it doesn't say so there) and investments. That's it.

The whole point of the plan is to simplify the tax code. He has said many times that means eliminating almost all deductions and loopholes.

gilgigamesh: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Unlikely. Of course, since the entirety of the "plan" consists of "NINE-NINE-NINE!11!" it's just speculation, but I have a feeling that businesses will be able to deduct operating expenses just as they do today.

But that isn't his plan. Its right there in the article: businesses can deduct dividends, purchases (only domestic, although it doesn't say so there) and investments. That's it.

The whole point of the plan is to simplify the tax code. He has said many times that means eliminating almost all deductions and loopholes.

Why is it when people call for simplifying the tax code, they end up proposing a system that would fundamentally change the entire thing by removing the progressive marginal brackets and/or adding a sales tax or VAT?

Why not simplify the system we already have, rather than trying to create an entirely new one?

dartben: Why not simplify the system we already have, rather than trying to create an entirely new one?

The answer to both is "No Politician Alive Will Turn On Their Corporate Masters".

BravadoGT: That being said--why does the left think state and local sales taxes are a great way to raise revenue to pay for government, but at the Federal level--it becomes an unfair tax on the poor?

I don't have a problem with sales tax at all, actually, I just think it's dishonest to claim the poor don't pay taxes.

BravadoGT: evil rich, noble impoverished

Thanks for the bullshiat editorializing. Some wealthy people are kind folks. Some poor people are awful people. That's humanity. The problems come when a group of people's natural inclination to look out for #1 takes the forefront, regardless of what it's doing to people.

BravadoGT: So what percent would be fair then? 50%? 1%? Should it be progressive, and you bring your W2 to the grocery store so they know how much to charge you?

It's a state issue, but no, income-based pricing at a private store would be stupid.

Question: has any particularly crazy politician pointed out that 999 reversed is 666? I honestly hope not, but I can't help but imagine someone using that sort of "logic" to attack the plan -- rather than the tons of reasons it could be questioned.

dartben: Why is it when people call for simplifying the tax code, they end up proposing a system that would fundamentally change the entire thing by removing the progressive marginal brackets and/or adding a sales tax or VAT?

Why not simplify the system we already have, rather than trying to create an entirely new one?

Because their real goal is not to "simplify." "Simplify" is just something that sounds good that they can get people behind.

But they are poor. They shouldn't get to vote unless they pay for that privilege. Right?

serpent_sky: Question: has any particularly crazy politician pointed out that 999 reversed is 666?

No, I don't think so. You might be on to something, though.

DamnYankees: But they are poor. They shouldn't get to vote unless they pay for that privilege. Right?

If you're relying on government assistance to feed/clothe/house yourself--then you shouldn't have the privilege to vote. Voting should be restricted to the productive members of society--or at least--the self-sustaining ones. If you're an able-bodied adult relying on the police-power of the state to take wealth from other people and then use it to take care of you--your voice shouldn't count one iota.

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: But they are poor. They shouldn't get to vote unless they pay for that privilege. Right?

If you're relying on government assistance to feed/clothe/house yourself--then you shouldn't have the privilege to vote. Voting should be restricted to the productive members of society--or at least--the self-sustaining ones. If you're an able-bodied adult relying on the police-power of the state to take wealth from other people and then use it to take care of you--your voice shouldn't count one iota.

Why?

People who are taxed enough already?

BravadoGT: If you're relying on government assistance to feed/clothe/house yourself--then you shouldn't have the privilege to vote. Voting should be restricted to the productive members of society--or at least--the self-sustaining ones. If you're an able-bodied adult relying on the police-power of the state to take wealth from other people and then use it to take care of you--your voice shouldn't count one iota.

It's called the "right" to vote -- and it is only taken away under very specific circumstances.

In my opinion, only those in jail should not be allowed to vote, but if/when they are released, they should have that right restored.

Dan the Schman: You do realize that would apply to many Tea Party Real Mercans who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in order to live and take care of themselves and loved ones?

Oh crap, you just made me change my mind. That's actually not a bad thing, is it?

timujin: BravadoGT: DamnYankees: But they are poor. They shouldn't get to vote unless they pay for that privilege. Right?

If you're relying on government assistance to feed/clothe/house yourself--then you shouldn't have the privilege to vote. Voting should be restricted to the productive members of society--or at least--the self-sustaining ones. If you're an able-bodied adult relying on the police-power of the state to take wealth from other people and then use it to take care of you--your voice shouldn't count one iota.

Why?

Because you'll vote for a different guy than me.

Serious answer: shiatty living situations are often (not always, but often) a result of poor life choices. If somebody's a bad decision maker, you probably shouldn't let them make decisions. On the other hand, if somebody shows a habit of making good decisions, give them more voting power. I'm for it in theory, but the problem is there's no good way to objectively tell whose economic status is a reflection of their abilities vs pure luck.

I wouldn't be opposed to an intelligence test, but people have to get over the fact that sham tests were used in the past to keep black people from voting. That doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of testing. That just means you have to make it a fair test and punish people who try to do otherwise.

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: But they are poor. They shouldn't get to vote unless they pay for that privilege. Right?

If you're relying on government assistance to feed/clothe/house yourself--then you shouldn't have the privilege to vote. Voting should be restricted to the productive members of society--or at least--the self-sustaining ones. If you're an able-bodied adult relying on the police-power of the state to take wealth from other people and then use it to take care of you--your voice shouldn't count one iota.

Poll taxes are illegal at the federal level under the 24th amendment, and at the state level under Equal Protection (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966). Good luck getting a law disenfranchising millions of non-criminals past the supreme court.

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: But they are poor. They shouldn't get to vote unless they pay for that privilege. Right?

If you're relying on government assistance to feed/clothe/house yourself--then you shouldn't have the privilege to vote. Voting should be restricted to the productive members of society--or at least--the self-sustaining ones. If you're an able-bodied adult relying on the police-power of the state to take wealth from other people and then use it to take care of you--your voice shouldn't count one iota.

Bravo. You're going to hook a ton with that one.

JOB CREATORS!

Like:

Lowe's
Pella
Electrolux
Kimberly-Clark