Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #11  
Old October 14th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Brock Windsor Brock Windsor is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
... If I'm missing something, please educate me.
I am guessing that business would be allowed to deduct the 9% they pay on raw materials as an input tax credit. This is the basis of a VAT or national sales tax in other societies and encourages collection. The 9% gets passed on directly to the consumer when a sales tax in enacted. Persons who consume more will pay more in taxes, generally the wealthy consume more nominally while the poor consume the most on a percentage basis of income.
On a graph his argument is sound as it expands the economy fastest by penalizing those who don't generate more economic expansion and punishing those who consume. The political realities are more complex as the tax is well hated being as it is on everything you buy and the poor usually have to be subsidized in the form of 'rebate payments' which are just a hand out tied to low income. It would definitely make American business more competitive
  #12  
Old October 14th, 2011, 01:14 AM
zengrifter's Avatar
zengrifter zengrifter is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
While I disagree with the idea of a national sales tax to replace the income tax, that would certainly make more sense than 9-9-9.
It was pretty interesting that when Rick Santorium asked the studio audience who wanted a 9% sales tax, he was greeted by stone cold silence.
Not a single person appeared to support it.
Why would you not agree with it?

As for that audience - most Americans never caught the plot: That a 13 or whatever percent would sufficiently supplant the income tax. And those under a certain level of income would receive some tax rebate.

But most of them chronically confused the sales tax with "flat tax" (which belongs in the same refuse bin as flat-earth. And now the issue is obscurred because its seriously being considered as an augment not a replacement, so people's eyes glaze over and/or the general cognitive dissonance causes them to rationalize that the income tax is the lesser of two evils (it is not). zg
  #13  
Old October 14th, 2011, 05:28 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

It's all moot. The world is ending in one week: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...e-world-again/
  #14  
Old October 14th, 2011, 06:10 AM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
It's all moot. The world is ending in one week: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...e-world-again/
If he predicts it enough maybe he will be right sooner or later. Or.... Maybe he read the bible and realizes it says no one can know the time. By predicting it he effectively assures it won't happen. OR he needs more of his followers to give him their life savings. They aren't going to need it in 6 days and the message needs to get out in order to get more people "right with God". After all God told him what that is so he knows.

Seriously though, I expect the lefties to watch the debates to pick apart the candidates. A more interesting take on what you guys thought is who did you like from the debate. One is likely to get the nomination and just might beat Obama. What do you see as the lesser of many evils? If you knew the Republican candidate would win who would you prefer it to be? None of the above is an option.
  #15  
Old October 14th, 2011, 09:14 AM
mmeyers mmeyers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South
Posts: 74
Default Balanced Budget Amendment

Government spending is out of controll. The government needs to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 31, 2011
Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KYL, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. TOOMEY, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. VITTER, Mr. ENZI, Mr. KIRK, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BURR, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COBURN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. LUGAR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr.
JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. JOHANNS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. PORTMAN, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following joint resolution which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--
`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
`Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.
`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--
`(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
`(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
`Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.
`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
`Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.
`Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.
`Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
`Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
`Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
`Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.'.
*
  #16  
Old October 14th, 2011, 10:11 AM
shadroch shadroch is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,696
Default

Do Cain's unnamed economic advisors play "Sim City"?
The tax code in Sim City is, get ready for it- 9-9-9.
Of course, any advanced player can figure out a cheat code that enables them to hide unlimited cash from the authorities.

As far as the rest of the people running, I'm trying very hard to keep this from becoming a politial thread so i'll toss that hand grenade thee threw into the next trench, and hope this can remain an examination of one tax plan.
I've yet to see anything in the 9-9-9 plan that would involve rebates( or handouts) to the poor. If they were to have been included, you would think that would be fairly prominant in the details since the plan as is results in tax increases for about 90% of the population.
  #17  
Old October 14th, 2011, 10:20 AM
blackjack avenger's Avatar
blackjack avenger blackjack avenger is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267
Default a couple amendments

1. Balanced budget amendment
2. No ability of fed government to borrow
3. No income tax
4. Fed government funded by tariffs
5. Perhaps a sales tax, but not on food.

Only way to keep us from becoming serfs of the fed government

Sales tax and tariffs keep government size in check, if taxes are to high people stop buying

With the government able to borrow unlimited, we become serfs.

With no check on income tax, we become serfs

Last edited by blackjack avenger; October 14th, 2011 at 10:27 AM.
  #18  
Old October 14th, 2011, 10:27 AM
Billy C1 Billy C1 is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 729
Default

We need look no further than General Electric to see the loopholes in the current system. One could make an analogy to AP play here. New methods evolve as needed to provide the desired result. No?

BillyC1
  #19  
Old October 14th, 2011, 11:07 AM
shadroch shadroch is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy C1 View Post
We need look no further than General Electric to see the loopholes in the current system. One could make an analogy to AP play here. New methods evolve as needed to provide the desired result. No?

BillyC1

The tax code, as presently constituted, has to be changed. No sane person would argue with that.
  #20  
Old October 14th, 2011, 11:18 AM
aslan's Avatar
aslan aslan is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
While I disagree with the idea of a national sales tax to replace the income tax, that would certainly make more sense than 9-9-9.
It was pretty interesting that when Rick Santorium asked the studio audience who wanted a 9% sales tax, he was greeted by stone cold silence.
Not a single person appeared to support it.
I think it is more a straw man. I cannot envision it as a simplistic 999 across the board. For example. the 46.2 million Americans who are considered in poverty would have to be exempted. Also, the capital gains of corporations would become ordinary income and be taxed at 9%.

I don't like it, even if it could be made fair, because as someone said before, it will only escalate over time and then we'll be saddled with both an income tax and a national sales tax that are too high, similar to Great Britain. Also, some states already have a large sales tax-- isn't CA 11% or something? Then they would have a 20% sales tax.

I am one of those who believes that corporate tax is a misnomer, since corporations pass these tax costs on to consumers. But, with that in mind, why not eliminate the individual income tax altogether and just tax the corporations/businesses. It will amount to a consumption tax, so that whatever we buy would be more costly, but then, we would have more money in our pockets to buy the pricier products. Of course, certain products like food would either have to be off-limits, or some law put in place to protect the poor and lower incomes who have little or no discretionary income. The customer base would have more money to spend, and government could use raising and lowering the corporate tax to effect business stimulus during recessionary times. I haven't thought it all out, but it may be an idea worth considering. Before the income tax came into existence, the US collected money through tariffs and tax on businesses, so it's an old idea that has worked in the past. [Waiting to be bludgeoned to death.]
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC