Conservatives like rail against our current anti-growth tax code. Despite loathing the tax code, conservatives invariably end up killing any fundamental overhaul of the system.
Witness the current controversy over Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax reform proposal with its 9% personal income tax, 9% corporate income tax, and 9% national retail sales tax.. Many of the objections raised to Cain’s plan are familiar to advocates of tax reform from Steve Forbes’ Flat Tax in the 1990s to the Fair Tax (which is Cain’s ultimate goal.).
The current criticism of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan goes along the same lines. There are two big thrusts:
The fear of the unknown: 9-9-9 has had an immediate positive response from voters, but opponents have questioned that 9-9-9 might lead to higher rates in the future. What, for example might stop 9-9-9 from beginning 18-18-18?
Others such as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Mn.) are concerned that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan gives the federal government another revenue stream in the form of a sales tax, ignoring that Cain takes away four other revenue streams by abolishing taxes on capital gains, inheritance taxes, payroll taxes, and repatriated profits.
Similarly, on the flat tax, it has been asked how the flat tax will remain flat? Columnist Mike Adams opines to flat tax supporters, “The IRS had changed the tax code 16,000 times in 22 years. They change the tax code twice as often as you change your underwear. How long do you think a flat tax would remain flat?”
With the Fair Tax, the worry is that after repealing the income tax and enacting a National Retail Sales Tax, that Congress would then bring back the income tax code unless the 16th Amendment is repealed, leading many to say that they won’t back the Fair Tax unless the 16th Amendment is repealed first with a 2/3 vote of Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
Cain’s answers on how he plans to check nightmare scenarios on 9-9-9 haven’t satisfied critics. While Cain would like to get Congress to require a 2/3 majority to increase the rates, Congress has been very reluctant to limits its taxing authority. Cain also promises to veto any increase in the 9-9-9, but Cain could only be President for up to eight years.
The hard truth about tax reform is that there is no tax system that can remain solidly pro-growth without the vigilance and involvement of the American people to hold Congress’ feet to the fire. This is not a good reason to retain a tax code that’s not working.
The fear of some people losing: Whenever a major tax overhaul proposal is offered, opponents never make the argument, “This plan will be bad for our overall economy.” Rather, they pick specific instances where somebody will be a loser or appear to lose.
In a recent debate, a moderator asked Cain what the sales tax would do to the nation’s automobile industry as used cars are not subject to the tax, and the car industry manufactures new cars. The question was born of the mindset of our current tax code which picks winners and losers.
The tax code includes a myriad of deductions and credits that are supposed to boost various industries and activities such as housing, oil exploration, green energy, higher education, and retirement.
Advocates of tax reform have the simple view that the purpose of a tax code ought to be to collect revenue in a way that allows the economy to grow.
However, tax winners seek to hold on to their deductions. Not all of these winners are on the left. Many businesses chafe against government overregulation and over-taxation, but would very much like to hang on to tax loopholes that have been won through expensive lobbying.
Perhaps the most common complaint is from those earning $50,000 or more who take advantage of the $200 billion Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Hugh Hewitt has dismissed the Fair Tax because of its lack of a home mortgage interest deduction, and any flat tax that has that has that mammoth deduction included will have such a high rate as to be unpalatable to the American people.
The sheer number of sacred cows protecting the tax code on both the left and the right frustrate any efforts to achieve serious reform.
Cain deserves credit for taking on this political hot potato and realizing the serious problem presented by current tax code and why reform is essential, even if it is politically difficult.
The cost of our current tax code is embedded in every product that we ship overseas which hurts our exports. It makes the United States a less attractive place to do business, and discourages investment and economic achievement. Compliance with the code costs the U.S. Economy $340 billion pear year.
The tax code is holding back the U.S. economy and if it’s not replaced, our long term economic growth and prosperity will be at risk.
Rather than trying to imagine what horrors may come upon us from a future Congress or getting upset about what tax write-offs we’ll no longer be able to take, Conservatives should evaluate if a tax reform proposal is good for America as a whole. Will it create an environment where the economy can grow again and where businesses can hire people again?
The question we should ask about 9-9-9 is not , “Is this tax reform proposal perfect?” Instead we should ask, “Will this new tax system be better for America than what we have now?”
October 13th, 2011 at 1:27 am
9-9-9 is NOT better than what we have now. This is going to put extreme hardship on the poor and middle class PERIOD!!! A 9% Federal Sales Tax on top of a State Sales Tax? The poor and middle class will pay a substantially higher percentage of their income to taxes under 9-9-9. This gimmicky plan will give Democrats ammo to nail Republicans as not caring for the poor and middle class. Except with 9-9-9, they WILL have a winning argument.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:39 am
Sorry Adam, the 999 plan sucks. If we give the government an additional method of collecting tax it will be just as burdensome and more in 10-years. I am all for leveling the tax burden, but this isn’t the way. It is a simple slogan for a complex problem.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:41 am
Romney also deserves credit for doing something about the Health Care issue in Massachusetts — when NO OTHER GOVERNOR in the country dared to do a DAMN THING about it. Despite the fact that many conservatives PRAISED him for enacting Romneycare including Tim Pawlenty and Jim DeMint and of course, let’s not forget the Heritage Foundation, now the conservative movement is all but running a lynch mob against Romney!
And why? Not so much because of Romney did — but because Obama took and idea from MA (or so he says — conservatives are so damn gullible when it fits their agenda) and turned it into a very partisan, unconstitutional law and rammed it down the throats of Americans. Stupid conservative merely assumed that Romney did the same thing to the folks in MA — when it reality they wanted a law much more liberal.
So Adam, if you say Cain deserves praise for attempting to reform the tax system with a stupid and rather gimmicky law. Remember, one person attempt to reform the healthcare system in his state, with lots of praise and support and to be thrown under the bus. After Obamacare is repealed, we will never have hope for any type of meaningful health care reform thanks to people like you Adam. No governor will want to touch health care reform after witnessing what some conservative did to Romney.
SO QUIT YOUR COMPLAINING THAT HERMAN DOES GET CREDIT FOR 9-9-9!!
October 13th, 2011 at 1:42 am
Adam, that’s a very interesting and well thought argument.
I do think that it’s not practical to look solely to “what’s good for America” when trying to win an election. You really have to look at what’s electable and what’s passable.
Let’s pretend 999 is good for America. If conservatives did as you suggest and select Cain as the republican candidate, there’s a very low chance he’d win the presidency against Obama.
But, let’s say people are so fed up with Obama that Cain actually wins. There’s virtually no chance Cain could get 999 through congress.
Even if conservatives tried to get the majority in both chambers, I don’t see it passing.
The stark reality is that America, as a whole, will not accept too much short term pain in expectation of a long term bliss.
Americans express their displeasure in some way every 2 years and any elected official that contributes to their pain over the past 24 months usually gets punished.
I think you’ve described an ideal that America will never embrace.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:45 am
3. Your make good points but go too far in laying blame on people like Adam.
Adam’s general concept is on target, though unworkable. But, the fact that he’s thinking such things isn’t the problem.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:59 am
I dislike sales taxes in states. They are so easy to raise. And they never go down. 9% is a huge sales tax as the beginning number.
I don’t care how much Cain talks about it, it is not a good idea.
No national sales tax. Period. Stop trying to shove this dog down our throats!!!! No national sales tax!!!
October 13th, 2011 at 2:03 am
Gotta agree with the sentiments. It’s an idea. It may even be better than what we have now. But once that national sales tax goes into effect, we’re all boned in the long run.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:04 am
People fall into the trap of thinking the President will have dictator-like powers when they are choosing a candidate.
Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, whether good or bad, doesn’t stand a chance of passing Congress or ever being enacted.
The same goes with Ron Paul supporters. They’ve fooled themselves into thinking there would be some huge change if RP was somehow elected. Whereas in reality, a Ron Paul Presidency would likely be extremely disappointing to his followers because there would be little support elsewhere in government for his agenda.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:05 am
LOL…I got halfway through the second paragraph and thought, “This type of logic sounds just like Adam Graham….so I scrolled down to check…yep
It probably never occurred to Adam that people are not liking the 999 plan because 1. There are not enough details available about it to really run the numbers, 2. No basis is given for the assumptions, and what if the assuptions are wrong?, 3. There are plenty of reasons to think it won’t work, and 4. It’s about as useful right now as Obama’s “shovel ready” jobs. It could take years to get it through Congress. What does Cain plan to do in the meantime?
Sorry, Adam, but the vetting of Cain and 999 is just beginning. You better sit down and insert a mouthguard…this is bound to get rough…
October 13th, 2011 at 2:09 am
5 – I get your point. However, with the non-stop hateful and often completely dishonest attacks against Romney by Rush, Levin, et al. it really disgusts me that Adam comes on here and talks about how conservatives fear changing the tax code, blah, blah, blah and sings the praises of a HORRIBLE tax reform proposal that is nothing more than a gimmick, while he has contributed to the mob mentality of destroying someone politically for doing something in their state to help solve a state problem. Adam Graham has contributed much to the blatantly dishonest attacks on Romney regarding health care reform. And he has the gall to lecture conservatives about being fearful about changing the tax system in a very stupid way? What pure hypocrisy! Thanks to people like Adam, we will NEVER be seeing meaningful health care reform on any level, not after how conservatives treated Romney during this election cycle over Romneycare.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:16 am
How is giving the used car industry a huge competitive advantage NOT picking winners and losers?
October 13th, 2011 at 2:16 am
10
Amen dude. Repeal and replace with something that works.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:31 am
Ah the contortions people will put themselves through to convince themselves that whatever a particular candidate puts forward can/must somehow be viable.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:36 am
8 — If 999 has no chance of passing Congress, why on Earth would ANYONE consider supporting Herman Cain? 999 is ALL what the man has for his campaign. There’s NOTHING else he has going for him. NOTHING!
October 13th, 2011 at 2:38 am
8. Good points. There’s academic reality. And then there’s real-world reality.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:51 am
I agree, I’ll take the current tax code (which isn’t that complicated for normal workers) over 9-9-9 everyday and twice on Sunday.
October 13th, 2011 at 3:49 am
@15. You forget, he has a “gun rights are a states issue” and “I’m clueless on the economy” as the other planks in his platform. He can run on those.
9.9.9. Balances the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class, while dropping tax rates on the rich. It’s poorly thought out, though catchy and lends itself to a comercial. It’s a good example of how clueless Cain really is on anything outside of the business model.
October 13th, 2011 at 3:58 am
The other thing 999 does is remove the biggest tool gov has to affect the economy. Some may say that’s a good thing, but the reality is Americans will always blame the government for a poor economy so the government needs to be able to play with tax incentives to influence business and personal behavior.
October 13th, 2011 at 4:52 am
In my 28 years practicing as a CPA, one theme has stood out: whenever tax “simplification” is legislated, my phone rings off the hook. If 9-9-9 were to pass, I’d give it no more than 5 years (probably less) before enterprising Americans began finding the loopholes, and then the tax courts get involved, and then additional laws are passed to enforce. Plus, we have to deal with not only income tax, but also sales tax, which is a complex area of tax unto itself. Entire legal and tax careers are devoted exclusively to my state’s sales tax laws, which you would think is a slam dunk. But time and circumstances introduce complexity even into the most simple tax methodology. I am persuaded that no matter what tax plan is introduced, give it 5 years (10 max) and it will be complex and convoluted. It’s just the nature of the beast.
October 13th, 2011 at 5:04 am
# Jerald Says:
October 13th, 2011 at 2:05 am
LOL…I got halfway through the second paragraph and thought, “This type of logic sounds just like Adam Graham….so I scrolled down to check…yep
=============================================================================
Me too….
The problem with 9-9-9 is it is the worst of all worlds, either go with the fair tax or an income tax but not both. You talk about an accounting nightmare. This is a full employment act for all accountants and tax attorneys.
I am very supportive of the fair tax if, and only if there is a constitutional amendment against income tax, until then, the Politicians will only be licking their lips to get their hands on another kind of tax. This is very liberal position you have here Adam.
October 13th, 2011 at 6:19 am
The worst part about it, as far as I’m concerned, is that it greatly increases the burden on the poor. Okay, so they replace their payroll tax with a 9% sales tax, but now they’re also paying 9% income on top of that.
So, the tax rate from the poor will effectively go from 15% maximum (payroll) to a total of at least 18%.
Please tell me how a Republican wins by increasing taxes on the least fortunate among us. I would love to hear this nonsense?
That used good line? That is PATHETIC.
Also, try applying a national sales tax to food, to which most (all?) state sales taxes don’t apply. How about introducing a sales tax in places like Alaska, New Hampshire, where there currently isn’t one?
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW EASY IT WOULD BE TO RUN AGAINST THIS PLAN? No plan’s merits even matter if its proponent can’t get elected. Obama would make toast of this clown.
October 13th, 2011 at 6:20 am
Also, you can’t just get Congress to agree to a 2/3 vote. Sort of unconstitutional.
Plus, if it wasn’t, they could just override with a new president and a *gasp* majority vote.
The idea is so, so stupid.
October 13th, 2011 at 6:55 am
21
I completely agree.
The biggest problem I see with the plan is that Cain can’t beat Obama with it, and so it’s meaningless to talk about its true merits and drawbacks. 9-9-9 lowers taxes on the richest people, and increases taxes on the poor and middle class. You’ll never win a general election when the Dems have such a winning argument against your simple plan.
Personally, I like a national sales tax simply for the reason that the “underground economy” will then have to pay taxes. Illegals, prostitutes, people paid under the table… they still have to buy stuff.
However, it does remind me of cities that build a big new road and make it a toll road to help pay for it… only when the road is paid for, the toll never seems to go away. The sales tax will go up, and it will get a lot more complicated as the gov decides to put it on some things and not others.
But again, it’s a pipe dream as far as I can tell.
October 13th, 2011 at 7:34 am
I have not posted on here in a couple of years, but I just felt that I had to address this question. I have become intrigued with the 999 plan and I have heard some experts saying that it will not bring in enough tax revenue and it will hurt the poor and other experts say that it will lower the taxes for the poor and cause an economic boom for our country. You can;t trust everything you read or hear, so the best thing to do is actually run the numbers yourself, but first make sure that you understand how 999 works. I just left the Marine Corp in July after 8 yrs and have not found a job as of yet, so my family is living off the income of my wife. I decided to do a side by side comparison of our current tax rates vs what our taxes would be under 999 based on the income of $4000 a month before taxes. We figured out that we were paying around 18% in income taxes currently. The results were that 999 would give us a significant amount of extra money to spend every month. When you do your calculations I suggest to take into account how much money you spend every month on things like groceries and also consider that with the corporate tax rate going from 35% down to 9% due to competition between businesses there would be the possibility of prices dropping up to 26%. For example, if you sped $400 a month on groceries under 999 you would spend $436 just based on the 9% sales tax, however if you include the drop of 26% to the $400 you would only pay $322.64 for groceries. Do not believe everything you read or hear. Find out for yourself.
October 13th, 2011 at 7:38 am
I also meant to add. You must remember that for the first time you will have illegal immigrants, drug dealers and others paying taxes with the 9% sales tax under 999.
October 13th, 2011 at 7:42 am
Keith, Firecracker is right on with his criticism of Graham. You haven’t been here long enough to realize how completely bankrupt of intellectual honesty Graham is when it comes to Romney, or when it comes to the flavor of the month Romnot candidate.
October 13th, 2011 at 7:44 am
I have read a lot of comments objecting to the 9-9-9 plan because
1-it’s hard to pass
2-it’s regressive
3-it could distort into something worse
All valid points, but won’t the poor and middle class have a dog in the fight now? The poor won’t vote for politicians who will raise their taxes. Right now, we have almost 50% of Americans paying no federal taxes. This makes raising taxes much more politically popular.
So there’s one thought that is FOR the 9-9-9 plan.
But again, turning to the poor, what are the unitended consequences? Imagine the poor not used to paying taxes and seein their money buying so much less. Add to that inflation. Suddenly we may have a situation where the underground market starts to emerge. Crime could go up. The promised fruits of an improved economy had better take hold very quickly to offset the burden placed on the poor, who, will be shocked to be paying taxes for the first time.
These are the obstacles 999 faces. Not sure they can be overcome, but it could be a good thing if ever implemented.
October 13th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Adam is working from an unspoken premise, which is false. The premise is that 999 is better than the current tax code. It isn’t. There are two massive failings that are apparent right off the top. The first is that 999 is oppressive to lower income and middle income households due to this massive sales tax. Further, there are millions of Americans who currently don’t pay any taxes. Yes they should pay some, but this 999 scam is egregiously punitive to them. They go form having a tax burden of 0% to 9% on their federal income and then an additional 9% sales tax. That is draconian.
The second problem with 999 is that it so dramatically lowers the tax rate for the richest tax payers, you know, the ones who pay something like 90% of the taxes. 999 doesn’t produce enough revenues to meet our current budgets, in fact it falls very short of producing enough revenue. This is class warfare of the rich against the poor. There is no need for democrats to spin this thing, they can simply tell the truth…republicans are out to protect the rich while sticking it to the poor. That is the sum total of this scam tax code. How are you going to get democrats to go along with this scam and pass it? They sure aren’t going to agree with deep cuts to entitlements, and republicans sure aren’t going to agree to deep cuts in defense. You do know it will take some democrat support to get this passed, don’t you? Cain can’t wave a magic wand and pass it without congress.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:10 am
A couple of things.
I find it funny, when people write things like, “This type of logic sounds just like Adam Graham….so I scrolled down to check…yep.”
That’s an ad hominem, a logical fallacy, as are personal attacks on me which is what we get in every post I write.
Secondly, we’ve still not had a macro-economic answer. We’ve gotten the idea that you think the tax will hurt the middle and lower classes. I would contend that it doesn’t because when you lower these corporate and individual income taxes, it will lead to a lowering of prices as the expense of making goods will be reduced. The high corporate and individual tax rates drive up prices because that’s an additional cost. In addition, I would say this plan will fabulous for small businesses, particularly the small one or two people businesses out there.
The other point raised is that the 9-9-9 plan would take away the tool of playing games with the tax code to get the economy out of slumps Given how successful playing with the tax code to jumpstart the economy has been the last three years, I don’t think that’s a big loss.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:12 am
8
NAILED, NAILED, NAILED IT!!!!
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!
This is what I’ve been saying for years!!!!!!!
Well-done my friend!
October 13th, 2011 at 8:13 am
29
Adam is right.
I side with Adam Graham and Herman Cain ON THIS.
But 999 Would never pass Congress.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Wow, I agree with Adam Graham on something. I think it happened once before.
As typical, here are the Rombots vociferously defending the status-quo rather than revamping the system with something that is pro-growth.
For the 1,000th time we have more proof that Romney and his supporters are merely status-quo technocrats out to protect our broken bureaucracy, just wanting to trim it a lil bit.
What’s the point of nominating someone like that? To win? To what end?
October 13th, 2011 at 8:25 am
32
You, my friend, have a severely flawed, and dangerous attitude about this election.
If Obama wins, this country is FINISHED.
Romney is NOT a status quo technocrat. He is a supporter of the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge. He is going to make Entitlements sustainable. He is going to cut taxes big time and make America competitive with the rest of the world. He is going to repeal Obamacare (if it’s not struck down by the Supreme Court). He is going to get this economy going.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:28 am
#33: It’s hard to believe that when any time there is a major policy dispute here and all the Rombots line up on the side of status quo vs reform.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:33 am
34
They are not lining up to oppose it because it’s reform, they’re lining up to oppose it because Herman Cain is campaigning on it, and he’s Romney’s opponent.
I’ll bet most Rombots would be open to the 999 plan if it was the Romney campaign running on it.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:34 am
34, that’s because what you’re talking about isn’t reform. It’s complete and violent overhaul.
The current tax system brings in PLENTY of revenue, is fair to the lower classes, a bit burdensome on the lower classes, and I’d argue pretty fair to the upper class. The solution isn’t to throw the whole thing out, but to fix it so that it’s fairer to the middle class, closes loopholes for the upper class, and brings in more revenue by cutting rates for corporations to spur growth.
Then, simplify the code.
But if a patient’s hand is broken, you don’t cut off his arm. The current tax system needs fixing, yes. Just like Social Security. But an overhaul is not necessary, and is politically impossible.
THEN CUT SPENDING. SS and Medicare can actually be fixed without overhauls too, which will go a loooong way in reducing overall deficits and debt.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Firecracker,
“Romney also deserves credit for doing something about the Health Care issue in Massachusetts — when NO OTHER GOVERNOR in the country dared to do a DAMN THING about it.”
That is simply not true. One needn’t do a Big Government overhaul in order to qualify as “doing something” about it. Off the top of my head, I know Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huntsman enacted meaningful reforms. Sure, they didn’t set up Tribunals that demanded everyone buy expensive, Cadillac insurance, but they pursued more free market reforms.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:35 am
35, Romney has consistently been against the fair tax, which is one of the reasons I support him. I may still support him if he was pushing 9-9-9, but I wouldn’t support the plan itself (although Romney probably understands it better than Cain does).
October 13th, 2011 at 8:36 am
37, Romney vetoed the Cadillac requirement…and was overridden.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:36 am
Boo,
“The solution isn’t to throw the whole thing out, but to fix it so that it’s fairer to the middle class, closes loopholes for the upper class, and brings in more revenue by cutting rates for corporations to spur growth.”
You mean we should make our tax base even more top heavy and by extension, volatile? We should disincent even more people to care about what the government taxes and spends?
October 13th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Boo,
Romney set up the Tribunal that does the dictating.
He signed that.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:37 am
40, no. You grow the tax base by creating jobs, not by reducing the buying power of the poor.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:37 am
“They are not lining up to oppose it because it’s reform, they’re lining up to oppose it because Herman Cain is campaigning on it, and he’s Romney’s opponent.”
That would never happen with actual conservatives. The reasons it’s happening in this case is that most Rombots are Mormons seeking to have their religion justified, not to promote a conservative agenda.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Adam just grasps at whatever if the flavor of the week, so long as it’s not Romney.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Metro? that was weird. And so not true. My religion was justified in the 1800′s.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:41 am
I don’t even go to church, and am certainly not Mormon…
October 13th, 2011 at 8:41 am
MWS,
RomneyCare is NOT a big-government overhaul. This is what the bill consisted of:
(1) Setting up an online marketplace for the poor to scroll through and find the best plan for their needs.
(2) Cutting funding to emergency rooms to help people get private insurance.
(3) Withholding a tax credit from those who do not have health insurance.
(4) Fining employers who do not provide insurance as an option to employees.
There is no big-government apparatus set up for this system. All it is, is telling everyone to get insurance, and helping them get the means to get it.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:45 am
47, I think for those who have issues with the mandate, #3 is the biggest point. It wasn’t a penalty, therefore it wasn’t a real mandate. It was the loss of a tax credit to which no one was really entitled in the first place.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:46 am
I’m a Romney supporter and I can tell you that if he were running on 999 he would positively, absolutely lose my vote.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Boo,
And Medicare can NOT be saved without an overhaul. The most fundamental reason why health care inflation runs 2-3x more than GDP growth is because of how we pay for health care. Those who talk about tort reform, electronic databases, and interstate health insurance competition are nibbling at the edges- as worthy as these reforms may be.
At it’s heart, our trouble with health care expense is that the consumer doesn’t give a crap what anything costs. The provider- if anything- is incented to inflate cost without any free market or government check. The payer- whether the government or insurance- lacks the ability or the will to ration care, and so health care is treated like a free, all-you-can-eat buffett. When people get “free” (or at least pre-paid) stuff that they like or feel they need, they tend to consume a lot of it. And so ever-increasing demand drives costs up, as supply simply can’t keep pace.
The bottom line is that ALL finite resources that are in demand must be rationed by the free market (like BMWs) or the government, or some combination. But our country simply isn’t ready to have that conversation, as people still insist on living a fantasy where we have infinite dollars to provide infinite health care to anyone who wants/needs it.
Most conservatives aren’t even ready to have this conversation (see Palin’s “death panels”), as we are making poltical hay over anyone who “would get between you and your doctor”….. translation….. nobody will take away your all-you-can-eat buffet, and we will allow health care to consume as many resources as it wants, and when it finally satiates itself, we can talk about funding schools, roads, police and fire, defense, conservation, etc…. etc…..
October 13th, 2011 at 8:49 am
And as for supporting the status quo, bull crap. There is something about Romney that I really despise, his unwillingness to cut defense spending. I am deeply concerned that he won’t do anything to scale back SS or medicare. But I am convinced that he is the only guy in the lineup who can beat Obama, so I’ll vote for him. I would have preferred Daniels by a mile, but he didn’t get in. And after that last debate where Romney beat the neocon drum about not cutting defense spending, I would probably be a Pawlenty supporter if he were still in the race. But of those up there, Romney is the only guy who has a chance of beating Obama.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:52 am
MassCon,
#47
That wasn’t all of it. The “Exchanges” or “Connectors” (I forget which term belongs to Obama, and which to Romney) dictate not just THAT we must have insurance, but WHAT KIND of insurance we must have. And of course, being the child of nanny-staters, these Connectors demand that people must have precisely the type of insurance that is driving costs and premiums through the roof (see #50).
October 13th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Nacho,
Huntsman has the stones to call for defense spending cuts.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:57 am
You know who I see as a model in terms of job performance?
Clinton. I want another Clinton. Not blowing up the ship, but sailing it very well, with smart governance and eyes toward budget balancing, economic expansion, and job growth. He did it with conservative economic policies (that, yes, include raising some taxes during fat times), but not radical ones.
If Romney can be our Clinton, but you know…..without all the other stuf…..I am 100% on board with that.
Clinton was a technocrat too — best Republican president we ever had.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:59 am
MWS, I believe that Huntsman would cut defense spending. But then he would also ship all our remaining manufacturing to China.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Nacho,
Romney isn’t exactly Pat Buchanan when it comes to trade. From time immemorial, Presidents have talked like Romney is- promising vague “toughness”- and you see where we are.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:05 am
9-9-9 is IDIOTIC! Why should we accept tax reform for the sake of tax reform?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Boo,
As an example of what I mean by Medicare needing a complete overhaul, see this chart
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/medicare-spending-deficits
Unlike Social Security- where we can more easily accomodate the will of the people and what kind of program they want- we can NOT afford to give people what they want with Medicare. We cannot continue to afford the blank check that is Medicare. Retirees now will consume about 4x more in Medicare benefits than they paid in Medicare payroll taxes.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:07 am
The argument that “rates can go up” is an exceptionally weak one. You can raise ANY tax rate, and the current system, which allows certain Americans to be taxed at a higher rate than others, is even MORE susceptible to hikes than a system under which the rates of the poor and middle class are (rightfully) tied to the rates of the rich.
In any case, a tax rate which can easily be raised can easily be lowered, and since its safe to assume the right wing of politics isn’t going anywhere soon, we know there will always be people calling for tax cuts.
Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is really just a 9&9 plan – because its really just a universal income tax at 9%, and a 9% sales tax. The flat income tax I like, but a sales tax has two main problems:
1) Its regressive – I don’t like progressive taxation, but regressive taxation is just as bad.
2) It discourages consumption – It creates an avoidable tax, and acts as a disincentive to spend money.
I’d rather see a flat tax – its fair, its neither regressive nor progressive, its simple, and it ensures that your share of the tax burden is equal to your share of the income.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:07 am
It is a regressive tax. It introduces a new line of federal revenue which will be exploited to raise taxes in general over time. It will reduce consumption and hurt the economy. It will force state and local government to raise their tax rates or go bankrupt. It is a stupid idea. Smart tax reform is good. Stupid tax reform is bad. Is that so hard to understand?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Romney was dead on in his reply to Cain in the debate. Simple proposals have the attraction of taxing the brain to a minimum in arriving at an understanding. Unfortunately, as Bachman said, The Devil is in the Detail. Cain talks about 9 9 9 as if it could replace the current tax code in one stroke of the pen. As ridiculous as this is, if it were somehow to happen, the patient, the U.S. Economy, would surely die. There are so many problems with his plan, it is hard to know where to begin.
First, the plan was evidently developed by a part time Wells Fargo accountant in Cleveland and coated out by an unknown Conservative financial consultancy. Others involved remain closeted behind closed doors.
Second, the plan is only Phase 2′ to follow a restructure of the current tax code
Third, the plan is an intermediate step to Phase 3, the so called Fair Tax
All of the above gigantic restructure of the entire American economy, must pass a Congress, no matter how Conservative, that is beholden to 65% of the American voters who are Not Republican. This Congress will be sensitive to tax changes which
1. Reduce the tax rates for the wealthy
2. Raise the tax rates for the poor, the current 47% of voters who now pay no taxes at all
3 Shift the tax burden decisively to the poor through a consumption tax
4. Raise the overall cost of living by 9% ( COL adjustments for S S ? )
All of the above may very well be revenue neutral…..but not remotely equitable. How on earth Herman Cain would presume to run a campaign against an increasingly populist Barack Obama, with ongoing marches on Wall Street and huge bonuses teed up at year end by the bankers and investors…..is beyond credible belief. And so far………this is Cains entire campaign. Foreign policy ? Don’t ask me! Energy policy ? What ? Immigration? What’s that ? His major line on all other issues is” I Don’t know”
Fortunately, all of this is becoming obvious and Cain will do the parabola jump like Perry and Bachman and leave the GOP with at least one candidate with a semblance of reasoned thought to run a very difficult 2012 campaign
CraigS
October 13th, 2011 at 9:08 am
It doesn’t hurt just the automobile industry. It hurts every consumer products company in the nation. It is stupid.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:09 am
#58 – so what do you want? Are we really supposed to start telling granny “no more medicare for you, you’ve lived long enough!”
October 13th, 2011 at 9:12 am
52
The “Connector” is that online marketplace I talked about.
The Mass Health board does not dictate what kind of health care you have. They make decide what kind of health care we subsidize with tax dollars.
For instance, it was the Mass Health board who decided not to include transgender therapy in the Connector. And it was them who decided to make sure all plans in the Connector had catastrophic coverage.
They don’t make anyone’s health care decisions. They figure out, if we are going to subsidize the poor to get insurance, what we should make sure they can choose from.
Again, The plans in the Connector are private insurance plans (dozens of different kinds) which Mass Health offers the poor some sort of subsidy for. They can choose to get insurance elsewhere if they want, but it may not be subsidized, because, for instance, it doesn’t offer IV services, or emergency treatment.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:12 am
61, Jax, you’re forgetting that Herman Cain says the poor can buy used food, used shampoo, used medicine, and used condoms.
This plan is BULLETPROOF.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Here, I suggest you all visit the MassHealth Connector site and read up about what it is.
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.3ef8fb03b7fa1ae4a7ca7738e6468a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_viewID=content&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_docName=content&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_folderPath=/About%20Us/Connector%20Programs/Benefits%20and%20Plan%20Information/&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken
October 13th, 2011 at 9:18 am
MK,
” so what do you want? Are we really supposed to start telling granny “no more medicare for you, you’ve lived long enough!”
We’ve got to come up with some mechanism to control spending, whether through free market rationing, or government rationing.
We don’t have infinite dollars for virtually infinite demand. Check out this chart, and you tell me how we get things under control
http://dailybail.com/home/chart-medicare-spending-from-1980-thru-2018.html
October 13th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Why would republicans support a regressive tax? Do you know what that means? That means the poor are paying more taxes as a percentage of income than the rich. That is the most idiotic idea ever. Come on people let’s think.
And for you that pretend that it isn’t regressive, ask yourself who it is that can afford to save. The rich and middle class can save and avoid taxes. The poor have to spend every penny just to get by. It does create an incentive to save, but is a huge burden on those that can’t afford to save.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:19 am
MassCon,
Pardons. I was conflating the Health Board with the Connector, which is merely the mechanism they use to dictate the terms of insurance.
Are you using high deductable plans with HSAs in there?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:19 am
If we want a “fair” tax, it should be a flat tax on income.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:20 am
35 – Romney would never think of something so dumb.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Jax,
All Fair Tax proposals I’ve seen incorporate a “pre-bate” to effectively eliminate the tax on essentials, and avoid the otherwise regressive nature of the tax.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:22 am
“We don’t have infinite dollars for virtually infinite demand.”
While this is true, the question has to be posed from the standpoint of how we can deliver as much healthcare as possible to the greatest number of people.
Fact is, without healthcare, without life, nothing else – NOTHING – matters.
Because it doesn’t matter how good of a shape our other systems are in, the dead can’t take advantage of them.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:22 am
68
The Mass Health board does not dictate everyone’s available health insurance, JUST the poor and uninsured.
I’ve had the same insurance for 10 years through work. Not the Connector.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:23 am
“All Fair Tax proposals”
The whole idea of a national sales tax is a lousy one…we live in a consumer economy, the last thing we need to do is discourage people from being consumers.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:24 am
58 – Why would you reference an organization that invented ObamaCare on here? Especially when talking about health care entitlement reform.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:26 am
71 – 999 isn’t the fair tax.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:32 am
MK,
“Fact is, without healthcare, without life, nothing else – NOTHING – matters.”
Okay, and it’s also a fact that we simply can’t write everyone a blank check for their health care.
The hard reality is that at some point, we simply have to tell people, if you want X, Y, or Z, you’re going to have to pay for it yourself. There is nothing magical about insurance companies or Medicare that can turn $1000 in premiums into $5000 in benefits.
And yes, there are competing goods in life. You know this is true. Would you take rampant crime and toxic sewage in the streets in exchange for one more day of life? Of course not. Would you trade 75% illiteracy rates in exchange for another week of life? I’d hope not.
Competing goods require prudence and wisdom. As Christians, we know all life is precious, but we ALSO know that we don’t have to try and cling to this life forever.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:34 am
MassCon,
The Health Board isn’t just driving up costs for the poor and uninsured. By promoting the (subsidized) all-you-can-eat concept of health care, they are increasing demand and driving up costs for everyone.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:38 am
“but we ALSO know that we don’t have to try and cling to this life forever.”
Nor should we use that as an excuse to content ourselves with people being hastened into an early grave. It seems reasonable to me to believe that, were we to seriously gut medicare, we could see the next generation live a SHORTER lifespan than the last one.
How many people are kept alive today because they have access to the treatments and medications through medicare?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:38 am
“The Health Board isn’t just driving up costs for the poor and uninsured. By promoting the (subsidized) all-you-can-eat concept of health care, they are increasing demand and driving up costs for everyone.”
So, you would rather it cost an arm and a leg to go to the doctor for a cold?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:38 am
People, you are all off in the weeds. Watch this video of the House Ways and Means committee where they interview a hand full of economists that have studied these issues in-depth: http://waysandmeans.edgeboss.net/wmedia/waysandmeans/wamr/wamr_49file.wvx then come back and tell me the fair tax, 999, vat, or any other consumption based tax won’t be much better than the income tax (especially for the poor). These super-genius economists poke lots of holes in the common knowledge.
The USA is the only modern country that has an income tax and it is killing us in the global marketplace. All of our global competitors are using vat taxes, which are really national sales taxes that are embedded in the price of goods. The only real difference with a national sales tax is that it is visible as a line-item on your receipt.
Cain’s problem is that he has not yet published details and examples. In the meantime, use this fair tax calculator to figure out who will pay more and who will pay less: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator
Cain’s plan is to institute the fair tax. He invented 999 as a catchy, slogany, fresh way of introducing it to the public. If he started off talking about the fair tax, it would never fly since that is an old idea.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:40 am
66.It’s not “free market” rationing (whatever you think that means..what a purely nonsensical phrase)
We need free market pressures brought to bear on the system. In a true free market, goods and services are plentiful and inexpensive. Bought a computer lately?
Milton Friedman had a brilliant essay on this ten years ago. I suggest you read it, you appear to have no grasp of what people mean when we talk of free market solutions. The solutions are not hard, they just take the will to implement them and the strength of conviction to overcome the demagogues on the left (and those, like you, who apparently buy the crap they are selling)
How to Cure Health Care
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7298
October 13th, 2011 at 9:42 am
The problem, MWS, is that you seem to think we can clearly predict which procedures will add what set amount of time to a peron’s life…it doesn’t work that way.
When my grandmother was in the hospital for chemo, and they came in to try a new medicine, it wasn’t “Well, we give you this treatment, and you’ll live an extra three weeks”, it was “lets try to get rid of the cancer with this…if it works, you could live another 15 or 20 years. If it doesn’t, well, we’ll have to try something else”
October 13th, 2011 at 9:42 am
So, you would rather it cost an arm and a leg to go to the doctor for a cold?
Why would you go to the doctor for a cold?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:43 am
“999 is ALL what the man has for his campaign. There’s NOTHING else he has going for him. NOTHING!” WOW! You do not have to like the guy, but to say such a thing is just plain ignorant.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am
What needs to happen is as MWS mentioned in #68… high deductable plans with HSAs.
We need to get the consumers involved back into the pricing mechanism…third party payment and regulations requireing insurance companies cover so many trivial things are driving the costs up.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am
#81 –
Health savings accounts are an interesting idea, but then we still have to ask the question – what happens when the piggy bank is empty?
====
I think there is an element of delusion, on the right, that we spent 10x what we need to on healthcare, all because people aren’t brought to face the full cost of their medical treatment. Its as if I could recieve the same surgery, from the same doctor, at the same hospital, with the same facilities and amenities, etc., all for 1/10th the price, if only I wrote the doctor – rather than the insurance company – the check.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Jax, you’re right that 99 isn’t the fair tax, but it is Cain’s way of easing into the fair tax. He’s a big proponent of it and as I understand it, that is his final goal. In fact, 999 isn’t even the first step of his plan, I believe it’s the second step, with the fair tax being the final step.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:47 am
“34, that’s because what you’re talking about isn’t reform. It’s complete and violent overhaul.” HELLO, an extreme overhaul is what is needed.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:49 am
84. I hate to break this to you, but Cain is NOT a serious candidate. He has been a stalking horse for Romney since day one to protect his right flank. It’s a strategy that has worked to perfection for ROMNEY.
Conservatives do not have a strong candidate in this race. Huckabee or Palin were it, and Romney has blocked them perfectly with other candidates. Perry is a buffoon. There is no joy in Mudville.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:49 am
“Matt Y.”
ANOTHER MATT ?!?!?!?!?!? OH NO??!?!
====
“Why would you go to the doctor for a cold?”
There are a number of reasons: 1) A Person doesn’t want to take time off work or school, 2) an upcoming event that requires them to be in good health, 3) They’ve been sick for a week, and want to get better faster, etc.
this is particularly true in the case of small or young children.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:50 am
“Its as if I could recieve the same surgery, from the same doctor, at the same hospital, with the same facilities and amenities, etc., all for 1/10th the price, if only I wrote the doctor – rather than the insurance company – the check.” True, you would not save 90%, but you’d probably save about 30% give or take. Nothing to sneeze at.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:51 am
87 – Then advocate the fair tax. 999 isn’t any more likely to pass than that. It is a stupid idea. I’m not a fan of the fair tax either. I think a federal consumption tax is a bad idea.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:51 am
If Cain stays up in the polls, it can only be a matter of time before the Romney campaign tries to start rumors in SC that Herman fathered a black child.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:51 am
74.
I have difficulty with that argument MK. We are also a country that encourages production, innovation, and growth – and an income tax “penalizes” that since it taxes our production.
Taxes are taxes – nobody likes them and you can always point a finger to who you are “hurting” no matter the situation. I am not so certain that you can be so certain that costs of goods would go down simply because you eliminated payroll taxes.
Does this sales tax also replace state sales tax? or would I have a 15% sales tax on good being in ID while NH/OR etc people had just a 9% tax on their goods?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:54 am
93. Marque -
This is your follow up to a non-negative comment about Romney’s campaign yesterday? Looks like you had a good night sleep w/ your anti-Mitt rhetoric audio tapes playing subliminaly on your stereo while you slept.
Make sure you guzzle a few more gallons of the anti-mitt koolaid today to. You need to get back into “true form”.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:54 am
85 – I agree. We need as many different types of plans as people are willing to buy and insurance companies are willing to sell. The government shouldn’t be regulating the types of plans people can buy. You can regulate the way they are advertised so people know what they are getting, but not what the plans contain.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:54 am
86. Do you understand how the free market works when there is real supply and demand pressure?
What we have now is an artificial third party payer system and of course prices are skyrocketing out of control…they ALWAYS DO in this type of system. There is no incentive to compare prices or services, or “shop” for a better deal, so we get the most expensive possible and it is replete with fraud and waste and duplication and it’s a mess.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:54 am
93- LOL!
October 13th, 2011 at 9:55 am
93 – Hilarious. Does Cain have any children?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:56 am
The 9 percent sales tax would not apply to goods produced in America for export. By contrast, goods imported into the US would be subject to the 9 percent sales tax. This is the practice in VAT countries, and it has been ruled legal by the WTO. It is a boon to exporters, and it puts domestic producers on equal footing with imports.
Also, domestic manufacturers could write off the 9 percent sales tax (VAT-like) on inputs they source from American producers, but would have to pay the 9 percent on imported inputs. This, too, is like the VAT.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am
94 – It doesn’t replace state and local sales taxes, and would like force them to increase. The total sales tax rate would likely be well above 15%.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am
MK,
“Nor should we use that as an excuse to content ourselves with people being hastened into an early grave.”
Right, but currently, we have about a 20 year longer life expectancy than a hundred years ago, despite the outrageously unhealthy lifestyle the average American lives, compared to a hundred years ago.
So I’d say we’re doing pretty well with that, and don’t need to continue to grow health care spending exponentially. At some point, people are going to have to start taking greater ownership of their own health, and not expect government funded medication to erase decades of smoking, fatty foods, and inactivity.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Man, I miss Milton Friedman. Who today speaks with such clarity and common sense?
October 13th, 2011 at 9:59 am
MWS, was that you in that commercial pushing grandma off the cliff?
Good grief.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:59 am
“93 – Hilarious. Does Cain have any children?” And your point is????
October 13th, 2011 at 10:00 am
MK,
“The problem, MWS, is that you seem to think we can clearly predict which procedures will add what set amount of time to a peron’s life…it doesn’t work that way.”
Not at all. My point is that there are competing goods in the life, and I used extreme examples to drive that point home. We can not- should not- let health care consume everything it wants, and then pay for everything else with whatever is left over.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:01 am
101 – Wikipedia says he has two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
October 13th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Telly,
Of course the free market rations.
Does everyone have a BMW who wants one? Does everyone have a 10,000 sq.ft. mansion who wants one?
The free market rations through price. The government rations through its power to coerce.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:04 am
The technical jargon of economix calls what free markets do “allocation,” as in “allocation of (scarce) resourced.”
October 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am
MWS, in the economic terminology, what markets do is called allocation, not rationing.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Sorry for the double point — 111. at first disappeared after I submitted.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:07 am
107 – Just curious. Settle down.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Marque,
“MWS, in the economic terminology, what markets do is called allocation, not rationing.”
Okay. But it’s still “rationing” in the sense we are discussing it. We can’t give everybody everything they want. That’s the point. We have to get over this idea that we can have unlimited health care with no rationing. Because in truth, ALL finite resources that are in demand are rationed. We can call it allocation if you wish, but it’s the same effect, and one that people are refusing to come to terms with.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Here is a simple example of why a sales tax, and even the “fair tax” with a “prebate” is regressive:
Suppose we have three people: Rich, middle class, and poor
To make this easy, lets suppose the rich guy makes $1,000,000 a years; Middle class makes $100,000 a year, and the poor makes $10,000 a year. Lets also suppose it is a 10-10-10 plan.
Each pays a 10% income tax. That seems fair. It is flat.
After income tax:
Rich has $900k
Middle has $90k
Poor has $9k
Now, suppose Poor has to spend all his after tax income. He ends up paying an additional $900 in federal sales tax. His total tax burden is $1900 or 19% of his pretax income.
Suppose Middle is able to save $45k and live comfortably. Cain’s plan has a 0% capital gains tax, so that is not taxed while it is being saved at all. Middle ends up consuming $45k and pays $4500 in federal sales tax. His total tax burden is $14,500 or 14.5% of his pretax income.
Now suppose Rich is lavish and consumes $200k a year and invests $700k (tax free). He pays $20k in federal sales tax. His total tax burden is $120k or 12% of his income.
Now is that fair? I realize the “fair tax” allows a “prebate”, but Cain’s plan doesn’t. The prebate only helps so much as well. A consumption tax favors the rich and hurts the poor. I allows the rich to consume more at a lower tax rate than the middle class and poor, even with a “prebate”
Democrats would love for the Republican nominee to advocate a federal consumption tax. They would rip them apart.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Re:166 – Here is the same example with a “prebate”
Suppose we institute a “prebate” that makes essential consumption up to $10,000 tax free.
Poor guy pays no federal consumption tax. His final tax burden is $1000 or 10% of pretax income.
Middle guy pays $3500 in federal consumption tax (first $10k of consumption is tax free). His final tax burden is $13,500 or 13.5% of pretax income.
Rich guy pays $19k in federal consumption tax (first $10k of consumption is tax free). His final tax burden is $119,000 or 11.9% of pretax income.
The prebate doesn’t fix things. It takes the burden off the poor, but the tax is still regressive. The rich are still paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Is it really “fair” to screw the middle class?
October 13th, 2011 at 11:10 am
MWS, you and I care 100% IN SYNC on the market realities at play in the health care industry.
We DO need HSAs and high-deductible insurance policies.
Otherwise, patients have no interest in saving money.
Who do you want to save money on your doctor’s visit? An insurance company limiting your treatment, or YOURSELF choosing the right course of action based on marketplace decisions.
SO here’s the sticking point: “We need health care to work like a market.”
Who am I quoting above? Mitt Romney, in his health care address he gave earlier this year. Romney has plans to increase the market forces in health care by expanding access to HSAs and catastrophic-only plans.
October 13th, 2011 at 11:32 am
119 – Exactly.
October 13th, 2011 at 11:35 am
118. It depends if she’s HOT!
And, maybe if she’s married.
October 13th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
121
LOL!
October 13th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
If the income tax is abolished then a national sales tax makes sense because everyone is taxed on what they spend. This means that everyone from the very wealthy to the illegal aliens will all pay taxes into the system. It gives us more control over our finances because we can decide to spend less and buy used items.
Politicians have and will vote against this because they loose power. Think about it…politicians use taxes to punish certain groups, reward others and to control behavior by tax activities (tanning salons)and “unhealthy” foods.
October 13th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, from what I’ve read, the biggest problem with 999 is that it ADDS a consumption tax without REMOVING the Income tax.
Many (I think I’m in this camp) don’t like the idea of giving congress 2 separate tax pipes to tap. It’s too easy to slip in a series of small changes to one or the other or both.
Whereas if it was just income tax or just sales tax, there would be less sleight of hand.
December 7th, 2011 at 4:20 am
My brother suggested I might like this website. He was totally right. This submit actually made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!