Republicans gather for fight night in Vegas

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How is that different than the current corporate income tax? Doesn’t it also tax net income? Wouldn’t that be passed along in the same manner?
It is the same in some ways and different in others. Just as many people pay no income tax because of various exemptions, credits and deductions, many corporations pay no income taxes - even profitable corporations can often avoid taxes with accounting gimmicks. That is the advantage of the value added tax - like the flat tax it is hard to dodge. But for the same reason, it is also harder to definitively say that the corporate income tax is smoothly passed through to consumers. There is no doubt that VAT is passed through, which is why most countries have either VAT or sales taxes, but not both.

One example of why the 9-9-9 tax will almost certainly increase the cost of basic goods and services and also have a regressive impact on lower income people. Most grocery stores have very tight margins - around 2-3%. So even at the top corporate rate of 35%, less than 1% of the price of groceries comes from taxes paid by the grocer. But with a 9% VAT, you know that 9% of the price of groceries is tax. Then you pay 9% sales tax on top of that (really 9.8% since you are paying taxes on the VAT itself). Since most poor people spend almost all their income on they are paying 9% in income tax on wages and 18% of the rest of their income in VAT and sales tax.
 
Well, no way around it other than to stop lying about it, anyway.

When people stop pretending that the Federal Income Tax is the only tax the Federal Government takes out of the wage-earner maybe we can have a cogent discussion about taxes. The “Federal Income Tax” on individuals does not include the Payroll Tax against their wages (hidden by taking it out pre-paycheck from the employer) and it doesn’t include the Medicare / Social Security “contributions” (read: Tax) against their income that doesn’t allow for any deductions.

The Federal Government taxes away 16% of your wages (under $100,000) before it even bothers to factor in deductions and apply your Federal Income Taxes.

The Government also taxes away an average of 22% of your consumer dollar through embedded taxation that’s hidden from your sales receipt.

9-9-9 eliminates the Payroll Tax, Social Security, and Medicare With-holdings - all taxes paid by anyone earning income that otherwise “pays no income tax.”

9-9-9 reduces the Embedded Taxes on goods made in America by reducing the rates that got embedded in the first place - like a 35% marginal rate on most businesses and the payroll tax.

9-9-9 makes transparent that the Federal Government is collecting taxes out of the sale of goods you buy by being honest about a Sales Tax.

So, to recap here:

1.) Those people with incomes under $110,000 pay a disproportionate amount of their annual income in social security taxes and medicare taxes, while their employers get to write off their payroll taxes as expenses. The existing SSI/Medicare/Payroll scheme is already “regressive”.

2.) The government already collects a hidden 22% Sales Tax because all the embedded taxes are passed down to the point of sale to the consumer.

3.) You can only read a “tax cut for the wealthy” out of this plan if you mislead people by pretending that SSI/Medicare aren’t taxes and continue to play out the farce that the Fed isn’t collecting a de facto Sales Tax under the current system.

The only real selling point for the alt. 9-9-9 (business, personal, payroll) is that people seem more comfortable paying their Federal Sales Taxes when that ball is kept safely under the shell instead of out in the open. It eliminates the regressive nature of the SSI/Medicare/Payroll scheme in place at a fair rate.

FYI, full-time minimum wage is $14,500 per year. Under the current tax code you’d pay $1100 in FICA (and your wages are reduced by the $1100 payroll tax your employer paid). Then after the $5,800 standard deduction you’d have an effective tax rate of 6% (minimum tax bracket is 10%) for another $870 in personal income taxes. The Fed’s total take of your paycheck before temporary credits and gimmicks is $1970 / $14500 or 13.6%.

Under Alt 9-9-9 the Fed taxes 4.5% from you (and 4.5% from your employer) in payroll taxes for $623 and 9% in income tax for $1305, giving a total of $1928 / $14500 or 13.3%.

Under Reg 9-9-9 the Fed taxes 9% from you (and 0% from your employer) in income tax for $1305, or 9%.

Then you’re just deciding whether you want to pay a large embedded tax (current 22%), a smaller one (alt 9-9-9), or a tiny embedded tax one with an explicit Income Tax. (Basically decide how much competitive advantage you want to give to Chinese-made products / how much more U.S. labor you want to put out of work by the smoke-and-mirrors of embedded taxes.)
  • Marty Lund
I don’t understand how adding a 9% VAT eliminates “embedded” taxes. The VAT is the quintessential embedded tax.
 
It is the same in some ways and different in others. Just as many people pay no income tax because of various exemptions, credits and deductions, many corporations pay no income taxes - even profitable corporations can often avoid taxes with accounting gimmicks. That is the advantage of the value added tax - like the flat tax it is hard to dodge. But for the same reason, it is also harder to definitively say that the corporate income tax is smoothly passed through to consumers. There is no doubt that VAT is passed through, which is why most countries have either VAT or sales taxes, but not both.
Thankfully, 9-9-9 does not propose one of those terrible Euro-Zone style VATs.
One example of why the 9-9-9 tax will almost certainly increase the cost of basic goods and services and also have a regressive impact on lower income people. Most grocery stores have very tight margins - around 2-3%. So even at the top corporate rate of 35%, less than 1% of the price of groceries comes from taxes paid by the grocer. But with a 9% VAT, you know that 9% of the price of groceries is tax.
How do you figure that? The business tax in 9-9-9 is supposedly “Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports” (effectively taxing a business’s revenues that got towards profit, imported goods, overhead, and labor). Heck, they’d probably have taxed net income except businesses like Google and GE have gotten to good at hiding their real income in overseas subsidiaries via IP rights shenanigans. Of course, Hollywood is also good at making sure that projects never generate significant net revenue too …
Then you pay 9% sales tax on top of that (really 9.8% since you are paying taxes on the VAT itself). Since most poor people spend almost all their income on they are paying 9% in income tax on wages and 18% of the rest of their income in VAT and sales tax.
Or, more accurately, they are paying 9% income tax instead of 7.65% Medicare/SSI and a 7.65% payroll tax that their employer was taking out of their wages. Then since they spend almost all of their income they are paying 9% sales tax + some smaller amount of embedded tax (definitely less than 9% of purchase price) instead of their current burden of a 22% average embedded tax on everything they buy.

But who cares about what people are actually paying the government, right? If it doesn’t say “Sales Tax” right on the receipt the consumer isn’t really footing the tax burden, right? Oh, wait, your Euro-VAT example already shows that the buck does stop with the consumer for all taxes businesses incur …
  • Marty Lund
 
I must say I think Santorum may have won the debate overall, with his incisive comments directed toward Romney and Perry and his ability once again to link family and faith to the economy. So long as he doesn’t focus too heavily on specific social conservative issues, I’m all right with his general views. And he showed some sense in his economic vision as well. Perry, while animated, as everyone has remarked, seemed petty and childish in his squabble with Romney. Bachman is sincere but doesn’t seem to be headed anywhere in her comments; and Cain’s mantra is wearing thin. I just learned Cain had recovered from stage 4 colon cancer: one must give him credit as a fighter for that alone. Paul’s comment on the horrible cost (financial and human) of war was the best one of the evening, and it distinguishes him from all the other candidates.
 
Well, no way around it other than to stop lying about it, anyway.

When people stop pretending that the Federal Income Tax is the only tax the Federal Government takes out of the wage-earner maybe we can have a cogent discussion about taxes. The “Federal Income Tax” on individuals does not include the Payroll Tax against their wages (hidden by taking it out pre-paycheck from the employer) and it doesn’t include the Medicare / Social Security “contributions” (read: Tax) against their income that doesn’t allow for any deductions.

The Federal Government taxes away 16% of your wages (under $100,000) before it even bothers to factor in deductions and apply your Federal Income Taxes.

The Government also taxes away an average of 22% of your consumer dollar through embedded taxation that’s hidden from your sales receipt.

9-9-9 eliminates the Payroll Tax, Social Security, and Medicare With-holdings - all taxes paid by anyone earning income that otherwise “pays no income tax.”

9-9-9 reduces the Embedded Taxes on goods made in America by reducing the rates that got embedded in the first place - like a 35% marginal rate on most businesses and the payroll tax.

9-9-9 makes transparent that the Federal Government is collecting taxes out of the sale of goods you buy by being honest about a Sales Tax.

So, to recap here:

1.) Those people with incomes under $110,000 pay a disproportionate amount of their annual income in social security taxes and medicare taxes, while their employers get to write off their payroll taxes as expenses. The existing SSI/Medicare/Payroll scheme is already “regressive”.

2.) The government already collects a hidden 22% Sales Tax because all the embedded taxes are passed down to the point of sale to the consumer.

3.) You can only read a “tax cut for the wealthy” out of this plan if you mislead people by pretending that SSI/Medicare aren’t taxes and continue to play out the farce that the Fed isn’t collecting a de facto Sales Tax under the current system.

The only real selling point for the alt. 9-9-9 (business, personal, payroll) is that people seem more comfortable paying their Federal Sales Taxes when that ball is kept safely under the shell instead of out in the open. It eliminates the regressive nature of the SSI/Medicare/Payroll scheme in place at a fair rate.

FYI, full-time minimum wage is $14,500 per year. Under the current tax code you’d pay $1100 in FICA (and your wages are reduced by the $1100 payroll tax your employer paid). Then after the $5,800 standard deduction you’d have an effective tax rate of 6% (minimum tax bracket is 10%) for another $870 in personal income taxes. The Fed’s total take of your paycheck before temporary credits and gimmicks is $1970 / $14500 or 13.6%.

Under Alt 9-9-9 the Fed taxes 4.5% from you (and 4.5% from your employer) in payroll taxes for $623 and 9% in income tax for $1305, giving a total of $1928 / $14500 or 13.3%.

Under Reg 9-9-9 the Fed taxes 9% from you (and 0% from your employer) in income tax for $1305, or 9%.

Then you’re just deciding whether you want to pay a large embedded tax (current 22%), a smaller one (alt 9-9-9), or a tiny embedded tax one with an explicit Income Tax. (Basically decide how much competitive advantage you want to give to Chinese-made products / how much more U.S. labor you want to put out of work by the smoke-and-mirrors of embedded taxes.)
  • Marty Lund
this is the second time you have called me a liar you do it again I will get the moderator Involved Our conversation is over
 
this is the second time you have called me a liar you do it again I will get the moderator Involved Our conversation is over
Since you are clearly just repeating and expounding upon disingenuous arguments you’ve acquired from other parties you are not the liar, sir, rather simply the unfortunate repeater of fabrications politicians and their backers craft in an effort to influence elections.
  • Marty Lund
 
I noticed that Ron Paul had Mitt Romney agreeing and nodding a lot. Santorum was right, in the sense that society is (or should be) built on family and faith. However, this really doesn’t play into the economy, as he said it did. Individuals are taxed, and sometimes married couples, but the economy really is about the individual. Society != Economy. Gingrich is quite a guy, and I really do think he knows his stuff. Cain has been built up by the media, and that’s just inflation; he’s seeing the end of it. From what I saw, Ron Paul had it in the bag. Now, I will unabashely type in large letters:

RON PAUL 2012!

PS I noticed a lot of people mentioned everyone in their analyses except Ron Paul. Do you honestly not think he’s electable? He makes a LOT of sense if you actually listen to what he’s saying rather than trying to determine if he’s being a libertarian or not.
 
PS I noticed a lot of people mentioned everyone in their analyses except Ron Paul. Do you honestly not think he’s electable? He makes a LOT of sense if you actually listen to what he’s saying rather than trying to determine if he’s being a libertarian or not.
I mentioned him. He says some things I agree with and some I don’t. I’m sure that’s why Romney was nodding in agreement at times. 🤷

I realize his supporters are enthusiastic, but he won’t be our next president.
 
Oh…who won?
I would say that Romney won the debate, and Gingrich came in second. Perry lost it and Santorum and Bachmann were only so so, close to last place. Ron Paul was interesting as usual and I would say he came in third. Perry looked bad and quite petty as he tried to nail Romney because he hired a Mexican gardener sometime in the past. This seemed like a ridiculous accusation and in desperation, Perry kept rudely interrupting Romney and not letting him answer. Romney and Gingrich have the ability and intelligence to discuss complicated issues coherently and simply, and their knowledge appears to have some depth. It is true that Romney has changed his mind on some issues, but so what? What politician hasn’t changed his position at one time or another, except possibly for Ron Paul, who appears stuck in the 18th century. I do agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy and prefer it much over Romney’s. Cain was probably close to Ron Paul in third place and he did not do as well this time perhaps because he was attacked hard on his 9-9-9 plan. I like his 9-9-9 plan, but he has to expand and broaden his talking package to other issues. Gingrich has depth of knowledge and looks good, but he is vulnerable on the issue he was talking about, namely the values issue and belief in God. Wasn’t he one of the few congressmen indicted on ethics issues and how many wives did he have?
 
Because he isn’t running against Obama, not yet at least and I doubt he ever will. He is running against the Republican candidates. Challenge Perry, Cain, Romney, Huntsman or Bachman to a debate and if he wins the nomination then he can debate Obama.
Are you implying that Newt does not deserve the equal opportunity fo fire up the party by making his Lincoln-Douglass claim of no moderators and no teleprompters in a debate??
 
9-9-9 eliminates the Payroll Tax, Social Security, and Medicare With-holdings - all taxes paid by anyone earning income that otherwise “pays no income tax.”
This tax clearly benefits the wealthy and will be an tax increase for the middle classes. How stupid are we? Why would I vote for a guy who promises me higher taxes while giving the wealthy an effective tax break? Only Santorum was catholic enough to talk about how his economic plan would benefit the middle classes.
 
i watched a lot of the rerun last night of the debate. i had a better impression of newt gingrich than i have had before. he seemed more self assured and ready to be a major player last night. so i will be paying more close attention to him. i voted for him in this poll. romney and perry got on my nerves last night. perry has that texas swagger that makes me nervous. i worry that there are voters who didn’t care for Bush and will be reminded of GWBush and will be turned off. perry seems like a nice guy and so does romney. Gingrich, Cain,
and Romney are the top 3 for me i think.
 
Well, no way around it other than to stop lying about it, anyway.

When people stop pretending that the Federal Income Tax is the only tax the Federal Government takes out of the wage-earner maybe we can have a cogent discussion about taxes.
Who pretends that income tax is the only federal tax?
 
Ok I’ve seen enough clips today of the bickering back and forth in Vegas to vote. Perry talking over Romney and the exchanges between the two. GOP candidates attacking 999and Cain attempting to defend it. Etc etc.

The winner of the GOP Vegas debate was Barack Obama.
 
I just want to know “when” will they allow Dr. Paul a fair opportunity to speak? 🤷

Peace
 
I just want to know “when” will they allow Dr. Paul a fair opportunity to speak? 🤷

Peace
I don’t think anyone in the lower 4 polling spots were given much face-time.

That being said, the tit-for tat format of the “debate” was atrocious.
 
I just want to know “when” will they allow Dr. Paul a fair opportunity to speak? 🤷

Peace
CNN’s bigotry was obvious.

Cooper kept trying to force Perry to apologize on behalf of Jeffress, despite Perry’s repeated attempts to explain that it’s impossible to apologize for something that someone else said.

It’s a crying shame how they robbed Paul of a closing statement. So much for fairness.

CNN’s post-debate coverage was even more laughable when they sat around patting each other on the back for being neutral. Sheesh. What a joke. The commentators who weren’t biased were clueless. One claimed that the Repubs had no new ideas. Hello? The Republicans should boycott these biased liberal networks. I can’t want for a Democratic debate on Fox some day.
 
It’s a crying shame how they robbed Paul of a closing statement. So much for fairness.
This irritated me almost as much as the bickering between Perry and Romney. Bachmann and Gingrich were given a brief opportunity to speak at the end, and then it was over. The camera caught Paul and Santorum in a quick exchange as things were wrapping up; I wish I knew what was said.

I really hope the MoneyBomb continuing today allows him to stay in the race as long as he wants.
 
Another thing that Mitt said which irritated me, that government workers need a pay cut to be on par with their civilian counterparts. First off, why would a filthy rich guy want to save money by fomenting class envy? If they cut my pay, I’d gladly take a job on the outside and make 1.5X - 2X more money. This is the case with many white collar workers in the government who have advanced degrees. They can easily save money by closing bases overseas or cutting the budget for the various departments as a whole without resorting to cutting middle class incomes.

What the government does offer which should be looked at is very generous pension plans and health benefits. The pay isn’t special and in most cases is less. But the same can be said for the military which is the sacred cow of republicans. They are probably overpaid in some cases.
 
From the transcript of last nights debate

ROMNEY: So we went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.

I love how Romney’s argument is " I can’t have illegals, I’m running for office".

Really, I’m running for office. That was what mattered. Not the legality of morality of it. I can see it playing now in an upcoming ad.
I think you are seeing what you want to see in that comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top