Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

CuteOldGuy · 10-12-2011, 01:20 PM

I never said I supported Perry, quite the opposite. I think he would almost as bad as Obama. I was just test my prognostication abilities. I didn't factor in that he was dumb as a post. I will try to not make that error again. Romney is equally compatible with the powers that be, and at least sounds smarter, so I guess it will be him. But I don't support either of them.

I'll tell the truth. I like Gary Johnson. It's too bad he's a Republican.

CuteOldGuy · 10-12-2011, 01:24 PM

Oh, and I don't support Herman Cain either. But ditching the current tax code is very attractive. It's the only way we will get the country back on course to prosperity. There is no way we can raise enough money, or cut enough money to balance the budget with the current system. It needs to be scrapped and new system in place. A new system that respects free enterprise, rejects crony capitalism, and gives the populace enough information to know what they are paying for and how it is being paid.

Whirlaway · 10-12-2011, 01:27 PM

Gary Johnson is a dunce who only utters platitudes; Perry is a complete charlitan. Gingrich is the smartest one of the bunch, but his personality is so vinegar he goes nowhere.

CuteOldGuy · 10-12-2011, 01:34 PM

Whirl, Gary Johnson doesn't do TV well, but he is principled and intelligent. If we want a movie star, I vote for Russell Crowe.

Whirlaway · 10-12-2011, 01:37 PM

I don't like Romney as the choice; but right now he is the best choice.......the strategy should be to support Tea Party candidates at local, state, and federal seats and then Romney will be forced to keep right of center as President.

But I hear you; Romney = more Chamber of Commerce Republican BS

CuteOldGuy · 10-12-2011, 01:40 PM

Obama with funny underwear is not the answer. If the choice is Romney or Obama, I will support a third party candidate, to help build the third party movement, and register a protest vote against the main party choices.

WTF · 10-12-2011, 02:00 PM

I like Hunstman but he is a long long shot. Perry is the worst , I do not understand how he keeps getting elected. Well I do , he has a huge slush fund he (well the GOP controlled legislature) set up to lure business to Texas and they reward him with contributions out the wazoo!

acp5762 · 10-12-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Rangers look off balance all night. Two runs won't win many playoff games. I can live with giving up five, although it's a bit more than I'd like. But tonight they just looked tired. But tomorrow is another day.

Actually the movement towards Romney is pretty interesting, and fairly inevitable, I think. The R's have tried on all the alternatives and have found that as much as they don't want Romney, none of the other candidates are Presidential timber. They've figured out that Perry is a lightweight, Bachmann is bat-shit crazy, Paul is a flake, Newt is a has been who just wants to sell a few more books, and that Cain knows about as much as running the government as my tom cat. In fact, I think it's the Cain boomlette/flavor of the month episode that started the stampede. The adults in the party realized what a unmitigated disaster that would be and decided that the TeaNut nonsense had run it's course and outlived it's usefulness and it was time for the big boys to step back in. This election is theirs to loose and they have no intention of letting a bunch of nitwit ideologues take it away from the guys who paid good money to put the party apparatchiks where they are.

And I can't conceivably see how Cain's plan can raise enough money. And even if it did, it would shift such an incredibly unjust portion of the tax burden onto the working class, I just can't see even the Republicans being arrogant enough to think that they could get away with passing it. But it would save me around $100,000 -150,000 or more in income tax and wouldn't cost me much in sales tax. So I don't know why I give a shit. If those making under $250 - 350,000 want to increase their taxes and cut mine, I guess that they're welcome to do so. The dumb shits.

The corporate 9% tax is pretty vague. Bruce Bartlett, former Bush administration official, notes that it's almost a gross receipts tax. "The tax would apply to gross sales less dividends paid and all purchases from other companies, including investment goods. Thus, there would be no deduction for wages." That would be very troublesome for me if it applied to Sub-S corporations (who knows since the details are so sketchy), but not fatal as I can always wind down my S-Corp and run as a sole proprietorship or a LLP. But it sure would penalize service industries, where the U.S. has a competitive advantage right now. And it would cause lots of businesses to lay off marginal employees.

See this link for Bartlett's article:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...cain-tax-plan/

Oh you wrote this right on time, lol. Ones Bat-Shit, ones Crazy, ect. Oh hell yeah. I would have to agree Romney is the less of the other evils.

JD Barleycorn · 10-12-2011, 07:29 PM

The most important thing to remember is that it is October, 2011 and not January, 2012. At this time in the last election cycle Guilani and Thompson were in the lead. I support Cain with both my time and money. One thing I noticed that is glossed over in this discussion is the closing of the loopholes with the 9-9-9 plan. It doesn't seem reasonable to think that 9% across the board can match current revenues until you remember everyone will be paying. Many people who pay very little right now like Warren Buffet and criminals like Bernie Madoff. I did like Bachman but it turned out that she was all look and little planning behind her. Romney doesn't know what he is going to have to believe in from one year to the next. Perry??? who cares anyway. Ron Paul has some good ideas on fiscal issues but his foreign policy statements have the feel of gaffs. Gringritch would be a great advisor, or VP, or even a Secretary of State but I'm not sold on him being President. The rest are munchins.

cptjohnstone · 10-12-2011, 08:22 PM

999, I hear alot of ifs & buts, you would think somebody would have run the numbers by now

national sales should not be hard to get

60 Minutes did a story about corporate taxes and the US gets very little because of our high rate
I would try to pull up the story but busy watching baseball, so google it

CPT Savajo · 10-12-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok, first, understand that the 999 plan would eliminate the tax code, thereby eliminating up to 23% of embedded taxes and compliance costs driving prices down by close to that percentage. When you add a 9% sales tax to that, the price level actually goes down, not up. Add to that, the provision that would make Congress pass any increases by a 2/3 majority, people will know and understand how and why their taxes are being raised. Our current system is so convoluted and filled with loopholes, no one really knows what taxes they are paying.

As far as the 9% income tax, understand that the 15.3% payroll tax will be eliminated, so paychecks will go up, not down. (Yes, I hear the fiction that the employer pays half that, but ultimately that is part of the employee's compensation package, so they are paying it with their labor, then the employer passes it on.)

I'm not sure how the business tax would work, but it can't be worse than what we have, and GE might actually have to pay under this plan.

So, lower rates, lower prices, no sales tax on used goods, broader base, economic growth, less government intrusion, transparency in taxation, congress taking responsibility for their actions - sounds a hell of a lot better to me than our current system.

Since the sales tax would not be applied outside the US, imagine if GM, Ford, Chrysler, Boeing, et.al. could reduce their compliance costs by upwards of 20%? We would immediately start balancing our trade deficit, and increase manufacturing in the US. We could undersell Toyota, Nissan, Airbus and many more on the international market.

Yes, there are other details which need to come out, but if you prefer the current system over this, you are delusional. The current system is in place primarily for POWER, not revenue. It is designed so businesses can buy preferences from Congress, and hide them in massive amounts of undecipherable regulations. This helps the rich get richer, keeps the poor down, and fills the egos and pockets of Congress. The IRS code is an insult to good government and a free republic.

"If" Herman Cain became the next president do you really think he would eliminate the tax code? That almost sounds like, "I promise to bring the troops home and I'll end these wars! You can take that to the bank!"

"If" Cain became president and he didn't eliminate the tax code and implemented his 999 plan, what do you think it would cause economically? If you trust someone who was one of the heads of the Federal Reserve than so be it. COG you have more trust in him than I do.

Would you go on to say that Herman Cain is a liar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tUd...layer_embedded

http://www.infowars.com/fed-insider-...en-debate-lie/

CuteOldGuy · 10-12-2011, 11:26 PM

I didn't say I supported Cain, but I support the plan. As it is proposed. If 999 were implemented on top of the tax code, I would not support that. I didn't even bother to look at the video proving Cain is a liar. I would be shocked if he wasn't. But the plan makes sense, even if the proposer (?) is a liar.

TexTushHog · 10-13-2011, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok, first, understand that the 999 plan would eliminate the tax code, thereby eliminating up to 23% of embedded taxes and compliance costs driving prices down by close to that percentage.

23% tax compliance costs???!!! You need a new accountant. I run a business that grosses between $1.5 and $4.0 million a year. Our entire accounting costs are less than $35,000/year. And that includes my personal taxes, my personal books, my kids' taxes, the taxes on a separate small O&G business, and the returns on three trusts.

CuteOldGuy · 10-13-2011, 01:07 AM

That's how much you pay your accountant, you haven't included gathering the information and conforming your business to comply with the tax code. The 23% has been vetted by many economists and is an average. Not everyone is your business. What is it about our current tax code that is so attractive to you? I'm a retired tax attorney and CPA, and I can tell you firsthand that compliance is a major expense for many businesses, and much is indecipherable, even by IRS attorneys. It is an affront to anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence and common sense.

We will not solve our economic problems with this system in place. You're still a pretty small business, certainly not a Boeing or GM.

TexTushHog · 10-14-2011, 02:36 AM

I have one employee who makes probably $15,000/year who spends probably a quarter of her time running back and forth to the accountants office and coding bills. So add $10,000 for 1/3 of her costs (including benefits, payroll taxes, WC, etc.). It's probably a bit less than that, but I generally just multiply by two. Less after tax, of course.

I had an in-house accountant two days a week for a long time. Doubled as office manager, but spend 85% of his time doing accounting. I paid him about $55,000/year plus benefits. So it's not that different in house or outside.

And I'd love to see the methodology on how compliance costs can be that high. I just can't conceive of a number that high. I've got a couple of friends who are CFO's of small publicly traded companies and two who are CEO's of small or midsize non publicly traded companies. So I'll run it by them.

And is the percentage you speak of a percentage of a taxpayer's gross or net? In other words, do I divide my costs of compliance by my gross income before deductions, or divide by my net income after costs of sales, and various expense items are deducted?

In my case would it be 45,000/1,400,000 (gross) or 45,000/ 900,000 (net, just to use a round figure)?