US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's Cain's tax plan. Drop both personal and corporate income tax to flat 9% rates, then have a 9% national sales tax. It's called 9-9-9 because, "feck poor people. I want more yacht money" isn't as catchy.

Now wait, I'm not a huge fan of this 999 thing for the most part but I like the idea of the flat tax. The problem with a national 9% sales tax is then you pay nearly 20% tax at the register in some areas. But how is this "feck poor people". Isn't the mantra of the dems to make sure everyone pays their fair share? If we're going to back gov't spending then we need to sign up to pay for it.

Making sure businesses pay their share is the tough part really. A company like GE paying nothing is a shame, should be a crime.
 
Now wait, I'm not a huge fan of this 999 thing for the most part but I like the idea of the flat tax. The problem with a national 9% sales tax is then you pay nearly 20% tax at the register in some areas. But how is this "feck poor people". Isn't the mantra of the dems to make sure everyone pays their fair share? If we're going to back gov't spending then we need to sign up to pay for it.

Making sure businesses pay their share is the tough part really. A company like GE paying nothing is a shame, should be a crime.
Its the mantra of the dems and most right thinking people that those who can afford the most should pay the most. Their are no deductions in Cains plan, only about half of those in the US earn enough to pay Federal income tax after deductions, this plan would see a massive number of people who currently don't pay income tax start to pay, many of whom can barely afford it. Conversly the very wealthy will pay a lot less. On top of that the cuts to welfare that will have to come as tax take collapes will feck the poor.
 
Now wait, I'm not a huge fan of this 999 thing for the most part but I like the idea of the flat tax. The problem with a national 9% sales tax is then you pay nearly 20% tax at the register in some areas. But how is this "feck poor people". Isn't the mantra of the dems to make sure everyone pays their fair share? If we're going to back gov't spending then we need to sign up to pay for it.

Making sure businesses pay their share is the tough part really. A company like GE paying nothing is a shame, should be a crime.

Sales taxes are regressive. When a tax is regressive it means that it will be a smaller % of your income, the larger your income. A cucumber that costs $1 and has the 9% sales tax costs $1.09 for both a rich person and a poor person, clearly this is a larger proportion of the poor man's income.

Progressive income tax rates are meant to "even out" the overall % of tax paid. Shifting the national tax burden onto the poorest people will be a disaster, the whole economic crisis and recession has been caused by the squeezing of the poorest.

Less money in middle classes pocket= less spending= less demand= less jobs= less money in their pocket and so on.

It is a MYTH that tax cuts for wealthy people creates jobs. Demand in a market and requiring labour to meet that demand creates jobs FFS. If you gave one rich man $100,000 a month or 10,000 people $10s a month which do you think will stimulate the economy more? Of course, the poorer people are more likely to purchase things with the money. The rich guy is more likely to save it.

In a true Capitalist system the rich people will compete for this extra spending and it will make its way to the top anyway, the problem is that the people in charge are convinced that directly giving people more money to invest increases investment and increases access to capital for smaller businesses. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that investors need to have a return greater than is larger than the required return at that level of risk, having a situation of depressed consumer spending is just as harmful as having slightly higher tax rates.

The 999 plan would be a disaster as it discourages consumer spending by the middleclass and doesn't get enough revenue in to fully pay for public spending so would require HUGE cuts in public spending, even further depressing the economy by making needless redundancies just to get to the current deficit levels.

Of course, the rich will do well but I suspect they would hold onto their money like they are at the moment and invest in low to medium risk projects- not small businesses.

Edit: on your GE point, thats a point of international tax law.. it is VERY hard to get a large company to pay their fair share in taxes while you don't enforce a strict policy on internal transfer pricing on assets, particularly IPs and software.

For example, say I am company X, My subsidiary in panama pays 10% tax, while my office in America pays 35%. I will try to get as much of my profit to Panama as possible and get as little as possible to the US. How I would do this is by giving the rights to the custom systems programs to my Panama office and lease it out to my other subsidiaries. I set the rate at $10,000,000 a year, claiming this is essential to the business and a similar product in the open market that has the same features would cost the same. I effectively am screwing the US tax payer out of $10million a year by "attributing" a cost to my US office in favour of Panama. While there may be some technicalities Im missing in my example it is certainly something that happens.
 
When Gregory then asked Cain whether he was a "neoconservative," the presidential hopeful admitted he had no idea what Gregory was talking about.

"I'm not sure what you mean by neoconservative," said Cain. "I am a conservative, yes. Neoconservative -- labels sometimes will put you in a box. I'm very conservative."

"But you're familiar with the neoconservative movement?" asked Gregory.

"I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement," admitted Cain. "I'm familiar with the conservative movement. Let me define what I mean by the conservative movement -- less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility."

How the feck is this imbecile a millionaire.
 
How the feck is this imbecile a millionaire.

Should read Sir Alan Sugar's twitter timeline. All my faith in the "business class" has been destroyed. He didn't know what caused the credit crisis, said the banks did nothing wrong and blamed it on "villains" who screwed over the customers and the banks..

but yeah, Cain doesn't understand many of the issues or anything to do with politics. That seems to appeal to some people.



Scary. Right of return????
 
Its Romney's to lose (but then again I said the same of Hilary in 08).

Cain's recent spike in the polls has more to do with Perry's demise than anything Cain has done - in fact he hasn't done much other than be outspoken from the safety of the fringes. Now that he's in the spotlight, he will put his foot in his mouth a few times and promptly be cast back into the long shot role. Cain lacks strategic communication skills, which is usually the kiss of death in today's "now media" world.

Perry is going to struggle to get back on track after his dismal debate performances, so its Romney's to lose.
 
Romney,Perry, Cain....

which of the 3 stooges will get the nomination....

Pick your poison. Jesus tap-dancing Christ America is fecked.

The only hope (lol) the US has is that Obama gets re-elected and actually does what he ran on in 2008, but he's bought so thats not going to happen.

He'd lose against Romney, IMO but he would win easily against all the other morons that are running.

I'm shocked that Huckabee chose not to run, I know he has a lot of financial commitments and is making too much money at the moment to drop but he'll never get a better shot at the presidency and a guy like him will make a ton of money after he leaves office. If Huckabee was in the race he'd win the republican nomination easily in this field because he appeals to the very conservative and has populist credentials. He'd also win against Obama at 9% unemployment and with the current general position of weakness he's in.

As Raoul said, its Romney's to lose. I think he's been very confident he would win all along because he hasn't wobbled. Normally you'd see Romney moving to the right to try and pick up primary support, but he's remained (comparatively) centrist so he seems like he's positioning for the Presidential Election already.
 
The nomination is Romney's to lose, I agree.

But the Presidency is Obama's to lose.

Still think Obama will win comfortably. But honestly you will only find out when they start debating each other.

Numbers don't look good for Obama. Horrible numbers for generic approval, handling of the economy, leadership etc. He really needs to pull his finger out because he looks weak and the perception is he's done feck all. The only thing thats helping him is that the Republicans are morons.

You have to remember though that the man in the street isn't paying attention, they don't know the ins and outs of the policy proposals of each side. They know who is the president and whether they think hes doing a good job or not. If not, they tend to vote for the other guy.

Poll: Most Americans can’t name GOP candidates – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

this is a good indicator that most people arent paying attention.
 
we are still a year away. People start to take notice in late Spring and Summer.

What the generic congressional poll indicates is, the democrats are doing better. Obama looks bad against the generic GOP candidate indicating he has issues, but he beats all the actual GOP candidates, though Romney gives him the closest contest.

Still a ways to go.

In the end people vote for who they like...Obama is still liked even if a majority say he has not come through.

Romney is not liked...that is why he cannot close the deal even with the GOP.
 
Well, all of them were essentially bought and paid for. Some more than others, of course. The money just flows too freely in American politics. That doesn't mean I think they've all been corrupt bastards who only care about taking a cheque from the corporations. Some did.
 
Well, all of them were essentially bought and paid for. Some more than others, of course. The money just flows too freely in American politics. That doesn't mean I think they've all been corrupt bastards who only care about taking a cheque from the corporations. Some did.

agree with that.

since WW2, I think FDR, JFK and Carter were the least corrupt.

Now I know President Kennedy's father purchased the presidency for him, I believe he tried to be a real president...and got killed for it. Though I was fed up with Carter at the time, looking back he did try to do what was right for the country.

since then, the hold of corporate power has got stronger on all candidates.
 
agree with that.

since WW2, I think FDR, JFK and Carter were the least corrupt.

Now I know President Kennedy's father purchased the presidency for him, I believe he tried to be a real president...and got killed for it. Though I was fed up with Carter at the time, looking back he did try to do what was right for the country.

since then, the hold of corporate power has got stronger on all candidates.
Little harsh on Lyndon Johnson to include JFK on that list and not him! Johnson became a very important president, achieving more than even JFK had the will for.

Pretty much everyone who is president in recent times is bought to some extent, as has been said, maybe its just bias but it does seem that the Democrats were the least overtly corrupt up until Clinton.
I really doubt any president in the last century hasn't had his nose in the trough a little bit though.
 
Little harsh on Lyndon Johnson to include JFK on that list and not him! Johnson became a very important president, achieving more than even JFK had the will for.

Pretty much everyone who is president in recent times is bought to some extent, as has been said, maybe its just bias but it does seem that the Democrats were the least overtly corrupt up until Clinton.
I really doubt any president in the last century hasn't had his nose in the trough a little bit though.

fair comment about Johnson. He did pass the Civil Rights Act and Medicare. But the country was in mourning for the loss of JFK and he did good with it. But he was tainted by Vietnam.
 
The nomination is Romney's to lose, I agree.

But the Presidency is Obama's to lose.

Still think Obama will win comfortably. But honestly you will only find out when they start debating each other.

Don't tempt fate, the Americans brought Bush to the white house....twice*



*At least once if you ignore Florida 2000
 
Sales taxes are regressive. When a tax is regressive it means that it will be a smaller % of your income, the larger your income. A cucumber that costs $1 and has the 9% sales tax costs $1.09 for both a rich person and a poor person, clearly this is a larger proportion of the poor man's income.

Larger portion of income yes. Same percentage. I know what you're saying but while some would say you're screwing over the poor (which I'm not sure I agree with) you're penalizing people that make more. I'm not sure how the word fair applies here. Just say what it really means. Because as it is now the rich are already floating the economy. (And no I'm not rich, middle class sure)

Progressive income tax rates are meant to "even out" the overall % of tax paid. Shifting the national tax burden onto the poorest people will be a disaster, the whole economic crisis and recession has been caused by the squeezing of the poorest.

Less money in middle classes pocket= less spending= less demand= less jobs= less money in their pocket and so on.

Even out? Again, I understand what you're saying but when the largest portion of Americans don't pay income tax I'm not sure how much more evening you can do.

It is a MYTH that tax cuts for wealthy people creates jobs. Demand in a market and requiring labour to meet that demand creates jobs FFS. If you gave one rich man $100,000 a month or 10,000 people $10s a month which do you think will stimulate the economy more? Of course, the poorer people are more likely to purchase things with the money. The rich guy is more likely to save it.

In a true Capitalist system the rich people will compete for this extra spending and it will make its way to the top anyway, the problem is that the people in charge are convinced that directly giving people more money to invest increases investment and increases access to capital for smaller businesses. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that investors need to have a return greater than is larger than the required return at that level of risk, having a situation of depressed consumer spending is just as harmful as having slightly higher tax rates.

Wouldn't disagree with this on whole.

The 999 plan would be a disaster as it discourages consumer spending by the middleclass and doesn't get enough revenue in to fully pay for public spending so would require HUGE cuts in public spending, even further depressing the economy by making needless redundancies just to get to the current deficit levels.

Possibly. But I like that it starts to talk about tax reform. Which needs serious attention.

Of course, the rich will do well but I suspect they would hold onto their money like they are at the moment and invest in low to medium risk projects- not small businesses.

Edit: on your GE point, thats a point of international tax law.. it is VERY hard to get a large company to pay their fair share in taxes while you don't enforce a strict policy on internal transfer pricing on assets, particularly IPs and software.

For example, say I am company X, My subsidiary in panama pays 10% tax, while my office in America pays 35%. I will try to get as much of my profit to Panama as possible and get as little as possible to the US. How I would do this is by giving the rights to the custom systems programs to my Panama office and lease it out to my other subsidiaries. I set the rate at $10,000,000 a year, claiming this is essential to the business and a similar product in the open market that has the same features would cost the same. I effectively am screwing the US tax payer out of $10million a year by "attributing" a cost to my US office in favour of Panama. While there may be some technicalities Im missing in my example it is certainly something that happens.

Again, see my bit about tax reform. Hearing about GE not paying any tax or someone like Buffet say he should pay more is ridiculous. He uses they system to his advantage then criticizes it. Disingenuous at the least.

Good post.
 
The reason they don't pay income tax is that they don't meet the minimum tax bracket requirements. Taking away what little money they do have means they won't help anyone. They also pay property tax, sales tax, payroll tax, and everything else. Consumer spending drives the economy, not wealthy people saving money. A few thousand people buying more things at Neiman Marcus is what we have now, while we have more people buying fewer things at large retailers because they don't have money.

While the wealthiest gain more wealth, the poorest are losing money. Putting more stress on them is downright diabolical. The whole idea of increasing taxes on already poor people is a joke. They aren't reveling in their lack of taxes. They'd happily pay income tax if they had the money. Unfortunately, they don't. Someone making $15k paying $1350 is a lot different from someone making $1m paying $90k. I'm pretty sure the millionaire can deal without the $90k, no problems. The person on $15k might miss rent, electricity, water, or other payments without the $1350. That doesn't include the increase in cost via the sales tax from 6-10% to 15-20%. They get to buy less for more money. On one hand, there are people trying to make ends meet. On the other, there are people who might miss out on an extra car, house, or investments. Sure, let's sacrifice the serfs for the the benefit of the vassals.
 
I think a simplified tax system is required but income tax should be the main personal tax. I would rather see exceptions and deductions scrapped, and then bands of 10% (up to $100k), 20% ($100-200k), 30% ($200-$300k), 40% ($300-400k), 50% ($400k upwards).

A national sales tax might be a decent idea to help fund something like healthcare but it would be a whole new level of collections and bureaucracy.
 
Larger portion of income yes. Same percentage. I know what you're saying but while some would say you're screwing over the poor (which I'm not sure I agree with) you're penalizing people that make more. I'm not sure how the word fair applies here. Just say what it really means. Because as it is now the rich are already floating the economy. (And no I'm not rich, middle class sure)



Even out? Again, I understand what you're saying but when the largest portion of Americans don't pay income tax I'm not sure how much more evening you can do.



Wouldn't disagree with this on whole.



Possibly. But I like that it starts to talk about tax reform. Which needs serious attention.



Again, see my bit about tax reform. Hearing about GE not paying any tax or someone like Buffet say he should pay more is ridiculous. He uses they system to his advantage then criticizes it. Disingenuous at the least.

Good post.

Sir Matt already gave a good reply on the 'income tax Vs total taxes paid' situation. Think about it, one person makes $200 and pays 20% tax one person makes $200,000 and pays 35%, income tax paid would be $40 and $75,000. This is a progressive tax, the more you earn the more you pay as a proportion of your earnings. Republicans try to lower these taxes in favour of sales taxes because this type of tax favours poorer people.

So the poorer guy buys $100 worth on the basic cost of living and pays $9 in a sales tax, the rich guy also buys $100 worth of stuff, they both pay $9. That's 4.5% of the poor man's earnings. It's only .0000045% of his earnings, of course he will spend more on stuff he likes but not anywhere near all of it. You see the different in committed spending on tax as a % of earnings that isn't income tax and how it favours the rich in a sales tax environment? Even if you weren't paying income tax you would still be paying a decent % of your earnings in taxes and would be unable to purchase more for your dollar. The progressive income tax counteracts this. Shifting tax revenues to sales taxes and making the income tax rate flatter screws over the poorer guy.

Every developed country has a crazy tax system, of course streamlining is welcomed. When I studied tax an university I couldn't believe how crazy the UK's capital gains tax laws are. Just don't let that snake oil salesman Cain fool you though, his plan is awful, purely a slogan to get him through the primary and would implode the US government if it happened. Tax reform does need to be bold, I quite like MJS's rates actually. He is also incredibly right about sales taxes being a pain in the arse to collect and adding more bureaucracy.
 
By the way, capital gains tax should probably be included in income tax rather than the 15% it is now. As is, someone's work is taxed at a higher rate than their lazy money. People didn't hold back on investing in the 90s when capital gains was higher. That also raises the effective tax rates of many of the wealthiest people whose money comes from investments.
 
The reason I'm quite confident Obama has an excellent chance next November is that Romney is polling quite low in the south in contrast to Perry and Cain at the moment. If indeed Romney gets the nomination, he still isn't likely to get heavy GOP base turnout throughout the south, which will be an absolutely critical area for Republicans to sweep in order to have a chance against Obama. If Obama manages to pick off a one or two "southern" (or at least traditionally red) states, then he will win the election quite comfortably by about 100 electoral votes.
 
The reason I'm quite confident Obama has an excellent chance next November is that Romney is polling quite low in the south in contrast to Perry and Cain at the moment. If indeed Romney gets the nomination, he still isn't likely to get heavy GOP base turnout throughout the south, which will be an absolutely critical area for Republicans to sweep in order to have a chance against Obama. If Obama manages to pick off a one or two "southern" (or at least traditionally red) states, then he will win the election quite comfortably by about 100 electoral votes.

At this point I can't see any real threat to Obama. Each repub that turns into the front runner flames out inside of 2 weeks. I can't even see another name that could make a run at this point.

It's Obamas race to lose.
 
From the NYT:

It was all predicted, but the unanimous decision by Senate Republicans on Tuesday to filibuster and thus kill President Obama’s jobs bill was still a breathtaking act of economic vandalism. There are 14 million people out of work, wages are falling, poverty is rising, and a second recession may be blowing in, but not a single Republican would even allow debate on a sound plan to cut middle-class taxes and increase public-works spending.

The bill the Republicans shot down is not a panacea, but independent economists say it would have a significant and swift effect on the current stagnation. Macroeconomic Advisers, whose forecasts are often used by the Federal Reserve, said it could raise economic growth by 1.25 percentage points and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. Moody’s Analytics estimated new growth at 2 percentage points and 1.9 million jobs. Those economists say that Republican ideas for increasing growth would have no measurable effects in the next year.

The Republicans offer no actual economic plans, only tired slogans about cutting regulations and spending, and ending health care reform. The party seems content to run out the clock on Mr. Obama’s term while doing very little. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, accused Republicans of trying to “suffocate the economy” in hopes that the pain would work to their political advantage. They are doing little to refute that charge.

Their lack of serious ideas was on full display in both the Senate and the presidential debate on Tuesday night in New Hampshire. The debate was ostensibly about the economy, but when the freshest and most-talked-about idea is Herman Cain’s ridiculous “9-9-9” tax plan, it is clear that the economy they were debating is not the one Americans are forced to live in. Mr. Cain — whose rise in the polls says everything you need to know about the amateur-hour decline of his party — wants to replace all federal taxes with a 9 percent levy on corporate income, personal income and sales. As Bruce Bartlett, an economist who has worked in Republican administrations, recently wrote in The Times, it is a formula designed to cut taxes for the rich and increase them for the poor, raising the deficit and doing nothing for growth.

The other candidates were no less vacuous. Mitt Romney offered an ash heap of used ideas, saying he would push a balanced-budget amendment, cut back on regulations, and go chest to chest with China on trade. Rick Perry, when he could be stirred to speak, vowed to somehow put 1.2 million people to work in the energy industry, as if the whole country were Texas and drills could pop up on every block.

Republican candidates fear the Tea Party too much to acknowledge that economists are solidly behind government intervention to awaken growth. The jobs bill rejected by Republican leaders will now be reintroduced piece by piece, and Republicans are not likely to go along with much more than an extension of the payroll tax cut (which is opposed by Mr. Romney). But at least the record is increasingly clear who is advocating real ideas and who is selling an empty vessel.
 
The concept of a filibuster really seems absurd to me. Why would a modern democracy allow such tactics?

'to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority'
Large parts of the jobs bill could be passed through reconciliation needing 50 votes + vice president though
 
another GOP myth that people who dont pay income tax dont pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes.

And sales taxes, and property taxes, (either directly, or through their rent, which pays the landlord's property taxes,) and license fees, and public utility fees, etc, all of which represent significantly greater proportions of a poorer person's income than a richer person's.
 
It's hard to see how a mormon is electable to the White House at the top of the ticket. Obama must be loving the republican race.
 
And sales taxes, and property taxes, (either directly, or through their rent, which pays the landlord's property taxes,) and license fees, and public utility fees, etc, all of which represent significantly greater proportions of a poorer person's income than a richer person's.

you bring up a significant issue here. the subject of fees.

For Republicans, fees are not taxes, though their effect is the same...in fact worse because it is not tied to income.

What I am puzzled by is the avarage republican voter is not well off. Yet they feel comfortable supporting all these measures that hurt them

Can they really be this stupid. :eek:
 
FYI - Sales and property tax are State taxes, not federal taxes. Most fees and many taxes on utilities are also State taxes.

Just thought its worth mentioning for the discusion above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.