Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (635548)	11/10/2011 5:17:31 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583742

>>> All of the valid consumption tax arguments I've seen replace income taxes. There is no reason to have both, as Cain is advocating. I have been an avid supporter of the consumption tax since the early 90s. There certainly IS a reason. A consumption tax is VISIBLE: If they raise it from 9-10%, the effect on taxpayers is immediate and evident, rather than being hidden in a morass of tax law that almost no one understands. I will agree that it is less than ideal; what we would LIKE is for the fairtax to be implemented as written which involves a simultaneous repeal of the 16th Amendment. But that simply cannot be done, and Cain recognizes this. As he should. Bill Archer was favorable toward it and got exactly nowhere with it. This is what is attractive about Cain's tax plan: it leaves the precepts of income taxation in place as a transitional measure to make it politically feasible to pass the required legislation. Then, you can begin to fix the overall tax system once and for all. The Cain plan would do more for our economy than anything anyone else has proposed.