Herman Cain's 9-9-9

[AquaMan]

What I don't understand is, if we reset the entire tax environment -- which is essentially what the Fair Tax movement is advocating -- why the value of a dollar itself wouldn't also reset.  It stands to reason that if tens of billions more dollars become available to consumers and to corporations, wouldn't that essentially equal a huge inflationary push downwards on the value of the dollar?  And wouldn't that mean, as Aquaman suggests, that prices would find a sort of value equilibrium?  Just because the dollar price of a washer would change doesn't mean the value proposition would change.  It also doesn't mean that, even if I have $800 more in my pocket every month, that prices wouldn't take that into consideration and adjust accordingly.

In general, I don't understand what the "fair" part of the Fair Tax movement is there to remedy. To whom will this be more fair?  

Well, that validates my line of thought as well. The system is fluid but it seems the amount of liquid (population) is all that changes. Pressures build up and dissipate to equalize.

Not to be too weird, but it seems to me the there are two things at play here. The natural proclivity of business in our system is to lower its cost, maximize its profit and generally suppress or eliminate its competition and the apportionment of wealth among the population tends to skew towards the top tiers and stay there without artificial adjustment. Those two segments welcome and benefit from flat taxes, lower taxes, regulations etc. Its a tougher case to make that anyone else does as they are the sustenance for the other two.

[we vs us]

Well, that validates my line of thought as well. The system is fluid but it seems the amount of liquid (population) is all that changes. Pressures build up and dissipate to equalize.

Not to be too weird, but it seems to me the there are two things at play here. The natural proclivity of business in our system is to lower its cost, maximize its profit and generally suppress or eliminate its competition and the apportionment of wealth among the population tends to skew towards the top tiers and stay there without artificial adjustment. Those two segments welcome and benefit from flat taxes, lower taxes, regulations etc. Its a tougher case to make that anyone else does as they are the sustenance for the other two.

Not weird at all.  I think that's essentially what we're seeing.  Which is why I don't know who a Fair Tax actually benefits.  It's being sold as "more money in your pocket, prole!" but I'm not convinced at all that once the dust settles we'll see anything approaching "fairness."  I have a feeling it'll just funnel more wealth upwards, only using a much more novel mechanism.

[Gaspar]

What I don't understand is, if we reset the entire tax environment -- which is essentially what the Fair Tax movement is advocating -- why the value of a dollar itself wouldn't also reset.  It stands to reason that if tens of billions more dollars become available to consumers and to corporations, wouldn't that essentially equal a huge inflationary push downwards on the value of the dollar?  And wouldn't that mean, as Aquaman suggests, that prices would find a sort of value equilibrium?  Just because the dollar price of a washer would change doesn't mean the value proposition would change.  It also doesn't mean that, even if I have $800 more in my pocket every month, that prices wouldn't take that into consideration and adjust accordingly.

In general, I don't understand what the "fair" part of the Fair Tax movement is there to remedy. To whom will this be more fair?  

Great questions!

Yes you will see a drop in the value of the dollar but only temporarily.  There is no such thing as major surgery without a little pain!

Those tax preparers, tax lawyers, and Internal Revenue Service employees, who are typically well educated and well equipped with transferable skills, will have to find other, more productive work. The projected 10.5 percent growth in the economy during the first year of a FairTax will provide plenty of new jobs.  

When you combine the Tax prep industry with the IRS you have $265 billion dollars spent every year on measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing Taxes.  The simple view would be to envision that $265 billion as an influx of revenue to the economy, but in actuality it would be far greater since the productivity of that industry today can only be measured as negative.  I would estimate more like half a trillian in influx to the economy.  

Any devaluation will only be temporary.

[Gaspar]

Not weird at all.  I think that's essentially what we're seeing.  Which is why I don't know who a Fair Tax actually benefits.  It's being sold as "more money in your pocket, prole!" but I'm not convinced at all that once the dust settles we'll see anything approaching "fairness."  I have a feeling it'll just funnel more wealth upwards, only using a much more novel mechanism.

How would it funnel money anywhere?  It simply eliminates the waste in a revenue-neutral manner.

[Conan71]

How would it funnel money anywhere?  It simply eliminates the waste in a revenue-neutral manner.

Because someone wired wevus' brain to assume everything revolves around wealth inequality?

Just messing with you wevus 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Those tax preparers, tax lawyers, and Internal Revenue Service employees, who are typically well educated and well equipped with transferable skills, will have to find other, more productive work. The projected 10.5 percent growth in the economy during the first year of a FairTax will provide plenty of new jobs.  

That is EXACTLY the same argument we have heard from the "tax cuts at all costs" crowd for the last 30 years!  And it is crap.  Just as the cuts argument is crap.  Never happens that way.  Never will.

What does it take for reality to reach these people?  Only two things will help; cut spending AND eliminate the Bush tax breaks for the 1%'ers - ending the class warfare in this country waged by those 1%ers.  Both are necessary AND sufficient.  Either alone is necessary, but insufficient.

[AquaMan]

I remain skeptical that it can be done first off. Might take an armed revolution.

Then I am still skeptical of the philosophy that simple tax or fair tax will do anything but redistribute professional financial and administrative employment while giving the illusion that things have really changed when in fact the same operant formulas remain in place (the two detailed in my previous post).

Is there any other system of government similar to ours that has this current tax program in place, how did they do it and how is it working? The european model of value added? Are we like them?

Historically, in our country, has there ever been a time before the IRS, that had a combination of national prosperity, a flatter wealth distribution curve and untaxed, poorly regulated manufacturing? A significant amount of the population may have to become farmers for this to work.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Historically, in our country, has there ever been a time before the IRS, that had a combination of national prosperity, a flatter wealth distribution curve and untaxed, poorly regulated manufacturing? A significant amount of the population may have to become farmers for this to work.

Yes, it was the robber baron era of the late 19th century.  Whose excesses led to long overdue regulations related to a wide variety of corporate activity.  And whose descendents now have been selling the country a "bill of goods" containing the BS items that 1) government is bad - all of it, no matter what.  And 2) taxes being cut is always the answer.  Well, we certainly have proved both of those wrong in the last 30 years.  Except the electorate hasn't understood yet.

[Gaspar]

So according to political genius Janeane Garofalo, Herman Cain is being used by the Tea Party to hide their racism.



I contend that any Democrat that votes against President Obama is a raciest. . .no. . .wait, any Democrat that votes for President Obama is a raciest, because it would be raciest to vote for a person of another race simply to prove that you are not raciest, right?. . .Wait. . .no.

What if the black Tea Party members vote for someone other than Herman Cain, does that make them raciest for voting for someone who is not black just to prove that they are not raciest?  If black Democrats vote for Hillary, does that make them raciest because they are trying to prove that they are not raciest to hide their racism?

Hey Janeane, why don't we all just vote based on the candidate's platform, history, accomplishments, and experience this time.  Close your eyes if you have to.

[Townsend]

So according to political genius Janeane Garofalo, Herman Cain is being used by the Tea Party to hide their racism.

I contend that any Democrat that votes against President Obama is a raciest. . .no. . .wait, any Democrat that votes for President Obama is a raciest, because it would be raciest to vote for a person of another race simply to prove that you are not raciest, right?. . .Wait. . .no.

What if the black Tea Party members vote for someone other than Herman Cain, does that make them raciest for voting for someone who is not black just to prove that they are not raciest?  If black Democrats vote for Hillary, does that make them raciest because they are trying to prove that they are not raciest to hide their racism?

Hey Janeane, why don't we all just vote based on the candidate's platform, history, accomplishments, and experience this time.  Close your eyes if you have to.

If you're trying to be condescending or insulting to anyone I think you're off target.

[AquaMan]

I think black tea is supposed to better for you. At least, if you have to drink the tea.

[Hoss]

If you're trying to be condescending or insulting to anyone I think you're off target.

Wait, what?

[Townsend]

Wait, what?

Checked the MO