Herman Cain

DILYSI Dave wrote: I have mixed feelings on the capital gains tax. The reason a low capital gains tax rate is good, is that it encourages capital investments. Capital investments play a key role in growing the economy. Ergo, a low capital gains tax rate encourages behavior that spurs economic growth. In theory. The reality isn't as clear.

Agreed 100% I know I would appreciate no capital gains taxes, and would invest more as a result. I am already taxed on the money I earn to put there, why do they need to tax it again?

DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Skin yes, but proportionally structured.

A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.

tuna55 wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: How about a plan that lets the Bush-era tax cuts expire, closes loopholes that the rich use to avoid paying taxes and cuts entitlement programs?

That would make the tax code way more progressive, more than would be healthy, I would argue. Companies would flee the US to places with a lower corporate tax rate.

Well, it was a mean trick anyway. That is Obama's plan. I just wanted to see if anyone would take the bait. I think you figured it out.

tuna55 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

I don't have solid numbers here...

Not surprising either.

Otto Maddox wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: How about a plan that lets the Bush-era tax cuts expire, closes loopholes that the rich use to avoid paying taxes and cuts entitlement programs?

That would make the tax code way more progressive, more than would be healthy, I would argue. Companies would flee the US to places with a lower corporate tax rate.

Well, it was a mean trick anyway. That is Obama's plan. I just wanted to see if anyone would take the bait. I think you figured it out.

Nope, I had not. I am pretty sure Obama's plan does not close loopholes and also messes with the rates aside from the Bush era tax cuts...

Snowdoggie wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

I don't have solid numbers here...

Not surprising either.

Do you? Yeah, I thought so.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: GPS, what line of work are you in?

Software engineering, by way of a past life in industrial automation and instrumentation. It is just passing the time until I am discovered as the next Jim Clark (or I retire).

You?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.

Proportionally structured to what? So that everyone has the same amount in the bank at the end of the year? Will you allow higher earners to keep more than lower earners? Why? How much? Who draws the curve that compares income to tax rate? Why?

It's just silly...

tuna55 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Because that makes the financial burden fair for everyone.

I would disagree. Asking a pizza delivery guy making $15k to pay $1500 in taxes has a much bigger impact on him than asking a family making 100k to live on 90k. A larger impact is not fair at all.

So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

I don't have solid numbers here...

Not surprising either.

Do you? Yeah, I thought so.

Why don't you just admit you have NO IDEA how much they made or paid in taxes this year or any other year.

Why would they be supporting this if they don't benefit from it?

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

I am a CPA. I do all kinds of financial stuff for a big corporation. I worked in public accounting, mainly taxation, for a decade or so before this. I have an economics degree and a masters in accounting. Still nobody on the interwebs values my opinion on the subjects. Go figure.

tuna55 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.

Proportionally structured to what? So that everyone has the same amount in the bank at the end of the year? Will you allow higher earners to keep more than lower earners? Why? How much? Who draws the curve that compares income to tax rate? Why? It's just silly...

A graduated scale instead of a flat rate? A gradual rising slope that allows the working poor to use some of their income to hopefully climb the scale? Is it too much to ask that we leave a little scratch beyond basic subsistence for our pizza delivery guy to take a night class w/o eating cat food?

Why is a curved rate sillier than a flat rate which forces a curve on it's impact to the payer rather than burdening the system with fair taxation? Is it because we are too lazy to figure out a fair system, too incompetent to do the math or because we are too corrupt to make any system work FOR the people?

I am just assuming most of the people in this conversation are working for a living and not part of the top 1% of this country. Why the hell are you advocating against your own financial interest in the name of simplicity?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I am just assuming most of the people in this conversation are working for a living and not part of the top 1% of this country. Why the hell are you advocating against your own financial interest in the name of simplicity?

Because that's the only fair way to do it. Any curve, drawn by any person, is subject to special interests, votes, political pandering and distortion. I cannot get behind that.

Snowdoggie wrote: Why don't you just admit you have NO IDEA how much they made or paid in taxes this year or any other year. Why would they be supporting this if they don't benefit from it?

OK, I have never seen any of their tax returns. Have you? Yeah, that.

EVERYONE would benefit form it is my charge. Rising tide and all that...

tuna55 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Why don't you just admit you have NO IDEA how much they made or paid in taxes this year or any other year. Why would they be supporting this if they don't benefit from it?

OK, I have never seen any of their tax returns. Have you? Yeah, that. EVERYONE would benefit form it is my charge. Rising tide and all that...

So do you have 'numbers' on how everyone will benefit from this?

So how many of the ersatz internet experts have read this?

http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Report.pdf

Otto, your contributions as a CPA are highly regarded, but is it not possible you're observations are skewed by your knowledge of the current system and a reluctance to embrace any other?

Just askin.........

Snowdoggie wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Why don't you just admit you have NO IDEA how much they made or paid in taxes this year or any other year. Why would they be supporting this if they don't benefit from it?

OK, I have never seen any of their tax returns. Have you? Yeah, that. EVERYONE would benefit form it is my charge. Rising tide and all that...

So do you have 'numbers' on how everyone will benefit from this?

Sure, 1 guy named Tuna55 is 100% sure that for every good set of numbers I dig up on the internet 1 guy named snowdoggie will dig up a set of bad numbers to prove me wrong. Repeat n times. Since this is n-1, I think we should stop now. Check the Herman Cain website, that's all I can offer.

oldsaw wrote: So how many of the ersatz internet experts have read this? http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Report.pdf Otto, your contributions as a CPA are highly regarded, but is it not possible you're observations are skewed by your knowledge of the current system and a reluctance to embrace any other? Just askin.........

I understand that going from an income tax to a consumption tax would encourage people with money spend less money buying yachts and Ferraris and invest more, but invest more where?

Invest more speculating in oil futures or other commodities that increase prices for everybody else. Invest more to create jobs in China or India or in another third world country where people will work for less money? Can we modify this to make sure that the money invested creates jobs here?

In reply to oldsaw:

I don't think so. One reason why I got out of taxation was because I felt like I was filling my head with useless information. In most financial areas, what you learn will always be useful to you. Significant tax reform would render the experience of a tax accountant close to useless. It would be about as useful as being an expert on VHS technology. Plus, most accountants and financial people can help a business be more profitable, more productive, etc. A tax accountant depends on a convoluted tax code and government bureaucray for their existence.

Those were my intellectual concerns. My practical concern was that I didn't get enough time with my children and my wife.

We're all buds here, let's change this to something more friendly:

Herman Cain supporters are racist:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/janeane_garofalo_racist_republicans_support_herman_cain.html

Herman Cain, himself, is racist:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/is-herman-cain-racist/40199

I suppose the only way to not be a racist is to dislike him, because he's a black guy. That sorta makes... no, wait a sec...

Snowdoggie wrote: So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

This should be Godwin's Second Law, honestly. I don't get the left's infatuation with two brothers hardly anyone has ever heard of.

ST_ZX2 wrote:

DoctorBlade wrote: Let's face it, anyone but Obama at this point.

Yes. This.

Hmmm - look where "anybody but Bush" got us. At this point, it's pretty much "anybody who's not a Republican or Democrat". It makes me wonder why Lyndon LaRouche, Angela Davis, Ralph 'Mr. Excitement' Nader, and some of the other perennial losers haven't been crawling back out of the woodwork.

DoctorBlade wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

This should be Godwin's Second Law, honestly. I don't get the left's infatuation with two brothers hardly anyone has ever heard of.

It could be all of the money they contribute to right wing campaigns and causes. The right seems to be just as obsessed with George Soros.

Of course a little campaign finance reform could put a stop to that on both sides.

Otto Maddox wrote: And a lot of people would love to give Texas back to Mexico. There'd be no agreeing on which states. I agree with the great David Lee Roth that there is something worthy in each part of the country.

I agree with the great Red Rocker that David Lee Roth can bite me. Now on to reading the rest if this thread. I've made it half way through page three WITHOUT my head splodin.

DoctorBlade wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So the Koch Brothers who are funding this guy are going to get a nice big tax cut at the expense of pizza delivery guys who will have to pay more taxes. No surprise here.

This should be Godwin's Second Law, honestly. I don't get the left's infatuation with two brothers hardly anyone has ever heard of.

+1

Duke wrote: Hmmm - look where "anybody but Bush" got us. At this point, it's pretty much "anybody who's not a Republican or Democrat". It makes me wonder why Lyndon LaRouche, Angela Davis, Ralph 'Mr. Excitement' Nader, and some of the other perennial losers haven't been crawling back out of the woodwork.

I'm respectfully disagreeing on your "anybody but Bush" claim. The economy was in melt-down at the same time the election cycle was occuring. After eight years of Republicans at the helm, voters perceived the "R's" as the source of their woes; the voters were only half correct.

If voters (and the media) vetted the '08 Obama with anywhere near the scrutiny any other candidate has or will receive, the election (might) have been gone the other way. Even so, that was never a likely result.

Now, Obama (and his administration) have been thoroughly revealed by their actions in spite of a generally sympathetic and supportibe media. The voters know first-hand about the current administration and the media will follow along with its' usual predictability.

Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.