Would you vote for jmfcst's tweak of Cain's 999 plan

[angus]

So, I would think it would come to between 20 and 23 percent of GDP

Okay, I read your post and there's not much detail about where the 20-23% comes from, but you seem to have it in your head as a reasonable guess, and your outline for a rough estimate seems good, so let's accept that for the sake of argument.  That would be 0.2 X 14 triillion = 2.8 trillion.  Current spending is just over 3 trillion, so that's not too bad, especially if we're going to trim spending in the next congress.

But I still think a few more adjustments are in order.  I like the idea of a flat tax on income, but I really don't like the idea of a national sales tax for two reasons.  First, as has been pointed out the percent of a family's budget used to consume goes way up as income goes down, so people who can least afford to pay the sales tax are hit hardest.  That affects all of us since we end up adjusting the welfare/medicare rolls to even that out.  Second, as Michelle Bachmann and others have suggested, it institutes a new tax, and if the past is any guide to the future, then we can expect that tax to increase over time.  Eventually you can imagine paying a 20% sales tax in addition to income taxes.

If we lose the national sales tax, and decrease the corporate tax in order to encourage job creation, and increase the national flat income tax proportionately to make it up, I'd be on board.  Maybe something like

income:  flat 18% for everyone
corporate:  flat 5%
sales:  none

That would still generate 3 billion or so, and you'd have an easier time selling it to both parties in congress. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First, as has been pointed out the percent of a family's budget used to consume goes way up as income goes down, so people who can least afford to pay the sales tax are hit hardest.

apples and oranges - my plan exempts the bare necessities:  food, rent, and used clothing...but if someone who is poor wants an XBox, then they're going to pay the full 9% VAT…but if you are poor and frugal, you can avoid paying VAT almost entirely by buying only exempted items.

---

 Second, as Michelle Bachmann suggested, it institutes a new tax, and if the past is any guide to the future, then we can expect that tax to increase over time.  Eventually you can imagine paying a 20% sales tax in addition to income taxes.

1)   yes, it institutes a new tax, but it gets rid of Social Security taxes
2)   Congress already can raise existing taxes
3)   With a VAT tax, if Congress raises it, they raise tax on everyone, therefore the political cost for increase the VAT becomes much higher…it ends class warfare, so if they can’t divide us, they are much less likely to conquer us.

---

If we lose the national sales tax, and decrease the corporate tax in order to encourage job creation, and increase the national flat income tax proportionately to make it up, I'd be on board.  Maybe something like

income:  flat 17% for everyone
corporate:  flat 5%
sales:  none

That would still generate 3 billion or so, and you'd have an easier time selling it to both parties in congress.  

1)   the VAT encourages savings
2)   your flat 17% income tax is not politically viable because it basically doubles the tax on the poor as compared to my plan

[opebo]

apples and oranges - my plan exempts the bare necessities:  food, rent, and used clothing...but if someone who is poor wants an XBox, then they're going to pay the full 9% VAT…but if you are poor and frugal, you can avoid paying VAT almost entirely by buying only exempted items.

What about transportation?  I think the typical poor spends about 30% of his income on transportation.  (I always heard it described as 30-30-30-10 - 30 each on transport, housing, and food, and the final 10 percent for a gun and a funeral).

[angus]

Gets a little tricky.  We could avoid taxing subways and buses, but still tax fuel and private cars.  This would also have the effect of encouraging public mass transit.  But "fairness" would be an issue.  If you live in Wyoming, there probably isn't a subway stop near your workplace or your house, so the car you drive is analogous to the subway that a person commuting from Brooklyn to New York would take. 


I think the goal of simplifying the tax code has merit, but already we're seeing that no code is simple.

[opebo]

angus, I'm afraid that the car is a necessit in america, not a luxury.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Lovely academic concept... I'm on a high-ish income. Would I like to see less taken out of my pay? Sure. But these kind of taxes help the rich, it's as simple as that.

I want to know what the impacts on government programs are before I'd vote.

Flat taxes usually are designed to gut public services to provide more private funding to have people pay for their own... and they suck people in with the idea of' oh, I'll have more money'.