Wahhh, Starbucks's cups are not Christmasie enough...

Legion Troll said:
Was it a consumption tax?
Click to expand...

No. It was a three part tax. It included one. As I said earlier in this thread. I would not support a consumption tax without an amendment to remove the power to tax income. It would be incredibly stupid to give the government that power to reach into our wallets with two paths like that. His had three. Each of which would grow more complex and crippling over time. Cain's plan was, IMO, the worst idea promoted in a very long time.
 
Damocles said:
No. It was a three part tax. It included one. As I said earlier in this thread. I would not support a consumption tax without an amendment to remove the power to tax income. It would be incredibly stupid to give the government that power to reach into our wallets with two paths like that. His had three. Each of which would grow more complex and crippling over time. Cain's plan was, IMO, the worst idea promoted in a very long time.
Click to expand...

I think talking about taxation is pointless unless you tackle spending first.

Figure out what your spending priorities are then you can determine the best way to raise that revenue.

For example for me at the federal level, I would spend money only on those things specifically authorized by the US Constitution, nothing loosely misinterpreted by the Commerce Clause. With that we could eliminate 99% of spending.

Of course that would never be able to happe because there are too many with their lips hooked on the gobblement teat.

Debating taxation is an interesting exercise, but it is futile without discussing the end of the equation which is spending
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top