Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

Neally said:
I actually can. The tax code is a separate issue from social services.
Click to expand...
Well then, let's hear your plan, especially the part about how you expect to fund it. Try to be specific. The handwaving you've been doing so far isn't really working.

Neally said:
Pure straw.
Click to expand...
No, I'm asking you about your plan for taking care of poor sick people. Do you have one?
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
No, I'm asking you about your plan for taking care of poor sick people. Do you have one?
Click to expand...
Our current tax plan doesn't take care of poor sick people and there are homeless and hungry people today with our current tax system. Demanding that Cains tax proposal address those issues is shifting the goal posts. Claiming that a flat tax would "sentence poor people to death if they got ill" kinda sounds like "death panels" hyperbole.

The bankruptcy inducing costs of medical care in the US isn't going to get fixed with the tax code. Let's get the tax code to a simple, fair system and attack the other issues on their own. BO has certainly failed to fix the health care system through any sort of tax code manipulation.
 
Tricky said:
I'm getting whiplash here. First you complain that deductions have gotten too difficult and too small. Then you suggest that the solution is to throw out all deductions.

But I don't buy the "simpler is better" argument. There is no "one size fits all" solution that can possibly deal with the myriad of situations that Americans face. The solutions may be difficult, but the solution is NOT to just throw everything away because "it's too HARD!"
Click to expand...
Hehe...

I'm pointing out that in large part, what you'd like has already been taken away.

And you either didn't know or didn't care.

And Obamacare takes a 3.8 pct tax on the average guy when he sells a house.

So what is it.....change is bad only if proposed by a republican candidate?
 
Neally said:
Our current tax plan doesn't take care of poor sick people and there are homeless and hungry people today with our current tax system. Demanding that Cains tax proposal address those issues is shifting the goal posts. Claiming that a flat tax would "sentence poor people to death if they got ill" kinda sounds like "death panels" hyperbole.

The bankruptcy inducing costs of medical care in the US isn't going to get fixed with the tax code. Let's get the tax code to a simple, fair system and attack the other issues on their own. BO has certainly failed to fix the health care system through any sort of tax code manipulation.
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing a plan there. If you aren't going to help poor people by letting them exempt health care from taxation, then how are you planning to take care of them? Specifically, where is the money going to come from? Unless you can show that you have a plan, then it is neither a straw man nor hyperbole to suggest that you would let them die. You haven't suggested anything else.

Go ahead. Let's hear your plan.
 
I don't know if this has been discussed yet on this thread or elsewhere: I've twice recently seen Herman Cain say something ludicrous in apparent seriousness and then come back by saying it was just a joke.

One is his plan for dealing with immigration where he called for an electric fence capable of killing anyone who tries to climb it. On Meet the Press he said that it was a joke. Yeah--because killing people is funny.

The other is the op-ed piece he wrote suggesting the GOP groom Tiger Woods as a presidential candidate for 2016. That's funny because there actually is a line beyond which a possible GOP candidate is too absurd to be offered seriously?
 
Tricky said:
I'm still not seeing a plan there. If you aren't going to help poor people by letting them exempt health care from taxation, then how are you planning to take care of them?
Click to expand...
Poor people still have to pay for food. There is no exemption in the grocery store for poor people. The same goes for utilities, housing, and any other necessities. Taxes are the same. The government beast still needs to be fed, rich or poor, healthy or sick. Deal with the other social benefits as a separate program.

Specifically, where is the money going to come from?
Click to expand...
Same place the money comes from now, charities, government programs, friends, family, etc.
Unless you can show that you have a plan, then it is neither a straw man nor hyperbole to suggest that you would let them die. You haven't suggested anything else.
Click to expand...
I guess the banks are outright murders when they expect mortgage payments from sick people. The same goes for grocery stores and utility companies. Murderers one and all!
 
Neally said:
Poor people still have to pay for food. There is no exemption in the grocery store for poor people. The same goes for utilities, housing, and any other necessities. Taxes are the same. The government beast still needs to be fed, rich or poor, healthy or sick. Deal with the other social benefits as a separate program.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that saying "deal with it as a separate program" somehow is answering the question. It is not. If you eliminate deductions, the "separate programs" will have to pick up the slack from that money that people used to pay themselves by virtue of having tax breaks. Accounting isn't magic. You can't wave away expenses by saying "let something else deal with it."

Neally said:
Same place the money comes from now, charities, government programs, friends, family, etc.
Click to expand...
Those "places" will have a much bigger burden if exemptions are eliminated. I notice you mention "government programs". Where are you going to get the money to pay for these "government programs" which will have a much greater burden once exemptions are eliminated? Magic again?

Neally said:
I guess the banks are outright murders when they expect mortgage payments from sick people. The same goes for grocery stores and utility companies. Murderers one and all!
Click to expand...
LOL. And you have the chutzpah to claim that other people are making strawmen. Plus, like most of your posts, this answers nothing. Is that because you have no plan, sort of like your hero, Herman Cain?
 
Tricky said:
You seem to think that saying "deal with it as a separate program" somehow is answering the question. It is not. If you eliminate deductions, the "separate programs" will have to pick up the slack from that money that people used to pay themselves by virtue of having tax breaks. Accounting isn't magic. You can't wave away expenses by saying "let something else deal with it."....
Click to expand...

No, accounting isn't magic. And those separate programs pick up slack from all kinds of external factors and have for decades. They will pick up slack no doubt from Obamacare. This is absolutely no different.

You're trying to actually say that a tax code needs to incorporate structures for certain classes of people. No, it absolutely does not need to do that.

(Not that you are right - you're not. Cain proposes not a VAT tax but a sales tax - so that tax is applied just once. Say for bread production distribution and sales. Now you have federal taxation at the farm, the market, the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer. All that goes away with Cain's plan and is replaced with a 9% tax at the point of consumption. Get your facts right before talking down a taxation scheme please).
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Sorry but no, the average guy doesn't make over 200k nor does the average guy realize cap gains over 500k on the sale of his home. Snopes
Click to expand...
Thanks, but you've produced a giant fail.

Prices depend largely on where you live in the country. No the average guy in Oklahoma would not be affected - but those in Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York certainly would in many cases.

Also and more importantly just look at the pressures to "make the rich pay their fair share" on this forum and others. These translate to pressures to reduce the thresholds in equations such as this one. Over time, the average guy ALWAYS gets screwed on this. Even if the threshold is not reduced, ten years of inflation and he's well within it's boundaries.

Just look at the threshold for the AMT - yes, it's been increased once or twice, but it now applies to millions of people. It was designed and promoted as only applying to the "very rich". These are just strategies to take money from YOU, in reality.
 
Last edited:
It really all comes down to this: Cain claims that the 9-9-9 plan raises the same amount of revenue. If that is true (and that's a big "if") then it simply redistributes the taxes. Some people pay more. Some pay less.

Considering that conservatives are in favor of it, who do you think pays more, the wealthy or the poor?
 
mhaze said:
Cain proposes not a VAT tax but a sales tax - so that tax is applied just once. Say for bread production distribution and sales. Now you have federal taxation at the farm, the market, the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer. All that goes away with Cain's plan and is replaced with a 9% tax at the point of consumption. Get your facts right before talking down a taxation scheme please).
Click to expand...

We have no VAT tax now. Cain wants to tax the poor so that the rich can take a big tax cut. That's the end effect.
 
Tricky said:
It really all comes down to this: Cain claims that the 9-9-9 plan raises the same amount of revenue. If that is true (and that's a big "if") then it simply redistributes the taxes.
Click to expand...

It would appear that authoritative sources within the government say that it is revenue neutral.

Thus, it is automaticly a boneheaded idea.

We are in a deficit now. Current revenues aint gonna get it.

Some people pay more. Some pay less.
Click to expand...

Te people who screwed us all a couple years ago are going to pay less. Sucks.
 
leftysergeant said:
We have no VAT tax now. Cain wants to tax the poor so that the rich can take a big tax cut. That's the end effect.
Click to expand...
See my post 331. I mention VAT tax because it IS regressive. Because Tricky appeared to assume that the regressive effects of the VAT tax would be in Cain's "sales tax". That's false.

The poor would pay less for things under Cain's plan. But they would not be excluded from helping to pay for the US Government.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.
 
mhaze said:
The poor would pay less for things under Cain's plan. But they would not be excluded from helping to pay for the US Government.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Horse hockey. We pay no federal sales tax now. This is to say that we do not get taxed by the federal government for needing things. (I would actually favor abolishing all ad valorem sales taxes nationwide and replacing them with an income tax.)

You will still have a poor person paying more taxes on more of his income than does the capitalist with a seven-figure income.
 
leftysergeant said:
Horse hockey. We pay no federal sales tax now. This is to say that we do not get taxed by the federal government for needing things. (I would actually favor abolishing all ad valorem sales taxes nationwide and replacing them with an income tax.)

You will still have a poor person paying more taxes on more of his income than does the capitalist with a seven-figure income.
Click to expand...

No, you do not. The very point of a flat tax is that it is "flat".

Further, the argument doesn't just go away because you said "horse hockey". I explained how and why total taxes paid on a consumer product would be less, and therefore why the item would cost less when a poor person bought it. That can be easily checked.
 
mhaze said:
Thanks, but you've produced a giant fail.
Click to expand...
I'm doubtful.

Prices depend largely on where you live in the country.
Click to expand...
<swish/plunk> ... the sound of moving goalposts.

No the average guy in Oklahoma would not be affected - but those in Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York certainly would in many cases.
Click to expand...
Your original claim is obvious BS, and that's what happens when you echo BS without thinking critically.

As for the new goalpost location, I'm dubious that the average guy in LA, SF, or NY makes over 200k AND realizes cap gain over 500k on home sale. Go ahead, prove me wrong.


And as for "the average guy" ... "in many cases" ... wiggle, wiggle, wiggle
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
I'm doubtful.

<swish/plunk> ... the sound of moving goalposts.


Your original claim is obvious BS, and that's what happens when you echo BS without thinking critically.

As for the new goalpost location, I'm dubious that the average guy in LA, SF, or NY makes over 200k AND realizes cap gain over 500k on home sale. Go ahead, prove me wrong.


And as for "the average guy" ... "in many cases" ... wiggle, wiggle, wiggle
Click to expand...
Yes, and the AMT affected less than 200 filers when it was introduced in 1969....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom