Cain's 999 came from Sim City?

You cannot make this shit up.....

http://www.portfolio.com/business-ne...cains-tax-plan

Isn't it funny how a video game can come up with a tax system that is far and away superior to the one we have now.

Not as funny as someone who thinks that to be correct........I've always suspected that Republicans/Conservabots lived in an alternate universe. I just never realized it was in cyberspace.

Truly, don't you believe this to be an amusing (albeit, short-lived) sideshow? I can't decide which is more unlikely: Cain winning the Republican nomination or Cain beating Obama.

Reality check: Cain has a few million dollars on hand. He'll get a bump for being popular the past couple of weeks but Obama raised $70mm for himself and the DNC in just the last quarter. And over $80mm the quarter before that.....it's going to be very very difficult for Cain to get the big-money traditional GOP donors to back him. And you should be glad. Believe me, there is nobody (except maybe Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich) that the White House would rather run against than Herman Cain.

I don't support Cain, but his plan is a hell of lot better than what we have now. And I am neither a Republican or conservabot. What is it about our current system that makes it so far superior to 999? Understand, 999 is not the ideal plan, and Cain is not my candidate, but 999 is step in the right direction.

Cain is unlikely, in my estimation, to get the nomination, and his 9-9-9 plan obviously looks gimmicky -- and I don't see how the numbers work.

But at least all this may serve the purpose of helping to energize the debate on badly-needed tax reform. We need to have a tax system that's not a national embarrassment, and one that looks like it was created thoughtfully -- not just a monstrosity that's been junked up with more crap every year for 25 years. Why does the tax code have to be 70,000 pages long? That's simply ridiculous.

Even Harvard's Robert Barro now supports a consumption tax if it can be coupled with a simpler, more efficient income tax structure.

Note this article, offering several good suggestions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/op...pagewanted=all

Among other things, he notes that the aftermath of a crisis provides an opportune time to effect structural changes.

It's time for politicians to start doing something worthwhile for a change.

Why does the tax code have to be 70,000 pages long? That's simply ridiculous. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Agreed, it is ridiculous. Ultimately, however, you can make all the structural changes to the tax code that ya want, but in the end, we're just going to be right back in the same place that we are now. The only difference will be that what you owe is decided on line 18 as opposed to line 210. An improvement, sure, but not necessarily in such a way that it really changes much in the overall picture.

I think that if we had a cleaner, more efficient tax code, the whole economy would benefit because we'd have less capital directed into malinvestment. That was part of the problem with the 1970s, when inflation pushed more and more people who weren't previously very wealthy into the top tax bracket. Then the tax shelter industry flourished, and hundreds of billions of dollars flowed away from what would have been higher and better uses. Now it is no longer possible to shelter income to quite the extent one could back then, by means of things such as accelerated depreciation, but it is still possible to greatly reduce one's tax liability in a number of ways.

And opinions vary here, but many analysts think it's less harmful to tax consumption than income.

I don't want the tax code changed. I want it abolished and replaced.

Here's a good article on the 1986 tax reform act:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20.../?ref=business

It was far from ideal, of course, but in many ways it was better than what preceded it.

Discussions leading up to it involved bipartisan compromise. Back then, there was such a thing. Now both parties dig in and never give an inch on anything.

[quote=CaptainMidnight;1760372]Why does the tax code have to be 70,000 pages long? That's simply ridiculous.

quote]

Didn't Cain say no bill should be longer than 3 pages? It doesn't matter. A bill should be long as it needs to be.

70,000 pages tells us the degree that the reform or revamp needs.

The republicans will never let it get far enough for the democrats to be forced to kill it.

One of our greatest strengths is our greatest weakness. No elected official would last long enough to see the bill(s) through the amount of time it would take to pass everything without the reelection funds that would disappear.

Doing something like this part way and unfinished could be the worst possible thing that could happen.

84% pay more taxes under 999. However, it is only 3 pages long v. 70K. Clearly superior.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/18/news...cain_999_plan/

That analysis, of which there wasn't any, is wrong.

It's a news story reporting on findings by the Tax Policy Center....which is pretty well respected and widely recognized as non-partisan and they seem to know a lot about.....I dunno....tax policy?

But, I like your "analysis" better.....short, to the point, easy to memorize and repeat over and over. Better not to get bogged down in things like facts analyzed by recognized experts. Especially if it doesn't comport with your viewpoint.

Never mind. Carry on.

>>>>Breaking news on 999!

It needs changes. Laughable.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...dures-barrage/

Where were the facts? You could study the plan and find out. This is not a perfect plan, but it is a much better plan than what is in place now. Cain should not be promoting it, he doesn't know how to present it.

A closer look at the plan would show a general dropping of the price level, due to the elimination of the embedded taxes in the price of everything due to our current code. The poor pay those taxes every day, they just don't know it. This would be transparent, and it would take a 2/3 majority vote of Congress to raise rates.

Not perfect, but better. Much better.

Here is a more thoughtful and accurate analysis of the 999 plan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main