PDA

View Full Version : David Hanson rebuts Herman Cain: Try the 0-0-0 Plan




Throwback280s
10-01-2011, 11:00 AM
In his return to WorldNetDaily.com commentary, David Hanson rebuts Herman Cain's 9-9-9 scheme with a plan of his own: 0-0-0.
No income tax, no sales tax, no corporate tax.

To eliminate the shortfall, Hanson suggests dramatic spending cuts and a federal tax on all state budgets.

Read the article here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=350621

Be sure to share the 0-0-0 plan with any media and social networks with which you are involved.

Voluntary Man
10-01-2011, 11:52 AM
actually, the only one of those taxes i can't find a major flaw with is the corporate taxes; after all, corporations do apply for and receive special privileges and protections from the government. but, corporate taxes should probably be paid to the government issuing the protections (usually a state).

Feeding the Abscess
10-01-2011, 12:11 PM
actually, the only one of those taxes i can't find a major flaw with is the corporate taxes; after all, corporations do apply for and receive special privileges and protections from the government. but, corporate taxes should probably be paid to the government issuing the protections (usually a state).

Ron actually advocated raising corporate taxes during his 1996 re-entry to Congress, and I suspect this was his very reasoning. Wish I could find the issues questionnaire that contains that.

Throwback280s
10-01-2011, 03:29 PM
Corporations that lobby and receive subsidies and regulations should be exempt from any tax cut.

Sentient Void
10-01-2011, 03:46 PM
The idea of 'corporate taxes' is a farce. Corporations don't pay taxes. *WE* pay corporate taxes through higher prices hidden in the good or service's cost.

It's like property taxes. Do property owners pay the property tax? Or do renters through a higher rent? Property taxes ultimately hurt those with the least assets, money and income the most. Same as Corporate taxes.

I'm intrigued by this proposed tax on State budgets. I don't know exactly how I feel about it or what it's implications are. Not saying I agree with it, just that it's intriguing.

Carehn
10-01-2011, 04:09 PM
This/\

He said it all.

Yet state taxes will simply be a tax on the people paying state taxes. Just like those who pay corporate taxes through higher prices. I say end the federal government all together.

Throwback280s
10-01-2011, 04:09 PM
Corporations always pass the buck on consumers.

eduardo89
10-01-2011, 04:14 PM
The two ways corporations pay taxes:

Raising prices (so in the end we, the consumers, pay)

Cutting costs (lowering wages, so in the end we, the workers, pay)

Brett85
10-01-2011, 04:36 PM
Ron actually advocated raising corporate taxes during his 1996 re-entry to Congress, and I suspect this was his very reasoning. Wish I could find the issues questionnaire that contains that.

I don't think that's true. Ron has never advocated any tax increase on any individual or business. I believe he wants the corporate tax rate to be 0% now. That's what the rate should be.

Brett85
10-01-2011, 04:39 PM
Realistically, the federal government is never going to cut enough spending to make up for the revenue that would be lost by abolishing the income tax. That's simply a fact. The only viable alternative is to replace the income tax with a consumption tax, because at least with a consumption tax, people have more of a choice in how much in taxes they end up paying. If we actually returned to Constitutional government we wouldn't need either an income tax or a consumption tax, but realistically it's not likely that Congress will ever reduce the size of government in any significant way.

Liberty74
10-01-2011, 05:27 PM
The two ways corporations pay taxes:

Raising prices (so in the end we, the consumers, pay)

Cutting costs (lowering wages, so in the end we, the workers, pay)

The tax burden on businesses equate to an additional 23% in the price of products and services you buy. The sad part for people who live in a state with a sales tax, you get hit with such tax on top of that artificially inflated price due to IRS tax policy. It's a classic example of how big government proponents distort and manipulate the market yet your average voter cannot grasp that simple economic law. The Left's demagoguing of such issue with class warfare probably answers that. But those cheering for "tax the rich" nonsense are the ones getting hurt in the end.

Regulations costs businesses about $2 trillion a year. These costs get passed down in some form or fashion as well - higher prices of goods and services, suppressed wages, etc.

There has also been documented studies where IRS tax policy causes home values to be 17% higher than real market values. So in essence, you end up paying too much for a house which results in higher property taxes and more interest payments to the banks. How is this good for the middle class?

The income tax (IRS) needs to be abolished. It's 70,000 plus pages of discrimination that costs individuals and businesses $300 billion a year to comply with (more costs getting passed down to the consumer). GE's tax return is 24,000 pages if printed out!!! That's crazy. Plus it's immoral and inhumane to steal. It needs to be immediately replaced with a national sales tax to support the current functions and promises made until those entitlement reforms are passed. A federal retail sales tax doesn't discriminate and politicians cannot divide people into income groups for political power gains.

Voluntary Man
10-01-2011, 07:43 PM
individual income tax? NO!

property tax? NO!

sales tax? NO!

inheritance tax? NO!

capital gains tax? NO!

corporate tax? Maybe.

Right or wrong, corporations apply for and receive specific privileges and protections from the state that actual flesh and blood private persons do not receive. Corporation pay fees (sometimes minimal, depending on the state) for these privileges and protections. is anyone arguing that corporations should receive their state-sponsored privileges and protections free of charge? in fact, all corporations pay about the same fees, regardless of the number of privileges and degree of protection they receive from the state. and, if I'm not mistaken, the highest earning corporations are generally those receiving the most privileges and protections from the state (subsidies, state contracts, special legislation and exemptions). so, if any tax is justified, it's probably a 10% corporate income tax on profits. yes, corporations pass these taxes on to their consumers and employees, but no one is forced to incorporate, or to shop at xyz corporation, or to work for xyz corporation. the benefit of a corporate tax over a consumption tax is that i don't have to eat at McDonald's, but i do have to eat. too many people have knee-jerk reactions to this, because they think it's "anti-business"; people who believe this are confusing business with corporatism. business existed long before corporations. business is free enterprise. corporatism is just a little fascist, if you ask me.

Feeding the Abscess
10-01-2011, 11:34 PM
I don't think that's true. Ron has never advocated any tax increase on any individual or business. I believe he wants the corporate tax rate to be 0% now. That's what the rate should be.

He did, and when I find the questionnaire I'll post the link. Based on his answers from everything else in the questionnaire, his reasoning seems to be essentially what Voluntary Man laid out in his post.

Requiring corporations that benefit from special privileges and protections from government to pay for it is voluntarism to a T. I'm fine with both zero tax (in an ideal environment) and taxes on corporations (in our current environment, in which corporations get special privileges and protections that we don't get).

Throwback280s
10-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Corporations that reject subsidies shouldn't have to pay, but those that do should.

Throwback280s
10-02-2011, 04:46 PM
bump for more discussion

Artie Fufkin
10-02-2011, 07:28 PM
nein! nein! nein! would be better

heavenlyboy34
10-02-2011, 07:40 PM
Realistically, the federal government is never going to cut enough spending to make up for the revenue that would be lost by abolishing the income tax. That's simply a fact. The only viable alternative is to replace the income tax with a consumption tax, because at least with a consumption tax, people have more of a choice in how much in taxes they end up paying. If we actually returned to Constitutional government we wouldn't need either an income tax or a consumption tax, but realistically it's not likely that Congress will ever reduce the size of government in any significant way.This is much more rational and fair than an income tax, but if the insane spending and empire building doesn't stop, TPTB will find a way to abuse it too.

Throwback280s
10-02-2011, 10:33 PM
Consumption taxes are dangerous with high inflation around the corner.

Voluntary Man
10-03-2011, 08:47 AM
nein! nein! nein! would be better

we should start promoting this^

Throwback280s
10-03-2011, 09:54 AM
nein... that's german for none, right? haha

oyarde
10-03-2011, 10:37 AM
The idea of 'corporate taxes' is a farce. Corporations don't pay taxes. *WE* pay corporate taxes through higher prices hidden in the good or service's cost.

It's like property taxes. Do property owners pay the property tax? Or do renters through a higher rent? Property taxes ultimately hurt those with the least assets, money and income the most. Same as Corporate taxes.

I'm intrigued by this proposed tax on State budgets. I don't know exactly how I feel about it or what it's implications are. Not saying I agree with it, just that it's intriguing. That is correct , want to tax them 3 % more ? OK , prices just went up 3.5% .

Throwback280s
10-03-2011, 11:24 AM
If they're gonna tax, who would you rather see taxed? States or corporations?

GeorgiaAvenger
10-06-2011, 09:40 PM
What is Ron's plan?

There has to be some revenue.

I need to know as I am trying to convince somebody his plan is better than Cain's.