Cain's 999 Plan Would Produce Faster Economic Growth Than Perry or Romney

So says Louis Woodhill for Forbes, here:

Comparing the Republican candidates’ tax plans as written, Cain’s “9-9-9” proposal is the best, because its 9% (effective) corporate income tax rate would produce faster economic growth than Perry’s 20% rate or Romney’s 25% levy.  Cain’s plan has a number of problems, but these could be fixed if he were to give up on the notion that it should be “revenue neutral”.

Given that Cain has the best plan for economic growth, it is not surprising that the latest polls show him leading the Republican pack.

This having been said, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is not as good as the FairTax, which Cain himself says is his ultimate goal.  The FairTax , which taxes only consumption spending, would yield the fastest economic growth of any tax system.  The FairTax plan has also had the benefit of years of analysis and refinement to minimize the distributional inequities that would attend any kind of fundamental tax reform.

Mr. Cain should start emphasizing that economic growth is much more important than revenue neutrality, and he should promise to refine his plan so that no income group ends up having to pay much more than they would under the current system.  If he does so, he, like fundamental tax reform, will be unstoppable.

Cain's 999 Plan Beats Perry's Flat Tax

So says Diana Furchtgott-Roth here:

The Cain plan gets rid of payroll taxes, about $15,000 on an income of $100,000, whereas the Perry plan does not. So under the Perry plan, our hypothetical family would pay $25,000, compared with $14,970 under the Cain plan. That's an extra $10,000.

If Cain could get rid of the payroll tax as well as keep tax rates to 9 percent, many taxpayers would gain substantially. But he has not said how he will replace the payroll tax revenues or transition to private accounts.

The S&P500 Still Has A Date With 950

So says James Kostohryz, here:

Europe will be back to square one and descend toward a terminal crisis – ostensibly the same crisis -- within a matter of weeks or months. Global equity markets will collapse, and the S and P 500 will test and possibly penetrate recent lows of around 1,075 on the way to a date with 950-1,020.

Americans Today Pay An Average Gasoline Consumption Tax of 10.2 Percent to States

The current average state excise and tax per gallon of gasoline is 30.4 cents, according to the American Petroleum Institute, here.

The federal excise is 18.4 cents.

Today's national average price per gallon is $3.464, as shown here.

This means that today's national average base price per gallon is $2.976 per gallon.

That yields an average state excise of 10.2 percent at today's base price, and an average federal excise of 6.2 percent. 

GDP, Q3 2011 First Report, at 2.5 Percent; Personal Savings Drop Big

See the full pdf at the Bureau of Economic Statistics, here.

Personal savings fell a full percentage point, or $116 billion, while personal disposable income went up $17 billion, matching exactly the increase in personal outlays of $133 billion.

Get it? People are saving less and spending any increases just to get by because of . . . increasing prices.

A falling savings rate, now at 4.1 percent, is woefully inadequate. A person saving at that rate making $50,000 per year would need over 12 years to save just 6 months' expenses.

"Bear market rallies tend to end on good news."

"What more good news is coming?"

-- Mish, here

German Leftist Gregor Gysi Savages The Two-Faced Angela Merkel

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had the quotations, here:

Die Linke ('Left') leader Gregor Gysi was electrifying. "It is the arrogance of power," he began, and never let go.

"Every week you come up with a different story about this crisis."

"We were told there would be no leverage and you have reversed everything in a matter of weeks. Now we learn that the 20pc loss will fall entirely on taxpayers. They alone will pay. That is the decision you are taking."

"Why don’t you tell German taxpayers the truth? They are being asked to pay the losses for French banks."

Those domestick traitors, bosom-thieves,

Whom custom hath call'd wives;

the readiest helps

To betray the heady husbands,

rob the easy.

-- Ben Jonson

Dick Morris Loves The 999 Plan, But Slaughters The Arithmetic

Trillions. Billions. They're all the same, right?

Here.

He was much better on Hannity today, where he nailed the consumption tax's grip on the neck of big government.

Not very many people have been making that point, that I know of, except me.

Explaining Property Taxes Then and Now

Critical listeners to recent remarks I made here on The Newsmaker Show with Kevin Doran will have wished that I had done a better job of explaining property taxes in the late 19th century and how their burden on property owners helped create the conditions which led to the tax reform which gave us the Income Tax in 1913.

So do I. Regrettably one can't say everything one needs to when trying to explain something else, especially like Herman Cain's 999 Plan.

If anyone gets the impression that I intended to say that the federal government routinely and directly taxed homeowners then, for example, in the same way homeowners are so taxed today on their property, that would be a mistake, but one which could easily be inferred. The federal government did do that sort of thing three times in the 19th century, but only for very brief periods and only to fund wars: in 1798, 1812 and 1861. Which is not to say there weren't other attempts, notable in the Pollock decision in 1895.

To a considerable extent, however, I have found that the terms "property tax," "excise," "tariff," "ad valorem" and the like get used interchangeably, and confusingly, in discussions about taxes both then and now. We would be better served if we were all more precise in these matters, but even supposed experts talk about this period with such imprecision sometimes that it is difficult to know exactly what people really do mean.

For example, "ad valorem" today gets used, as at usgovernmentrevenue.com, as a category under which to list excise taxes, tariffs, property taxes, etc., as opposed to income taxes, corporate taxes and social insurance taxes. In truth, however, its specific meaning has been more complicated than that.

From that characterization would not know that tax historians often distinguish personal property taxes in the first half of the 19th century as "in rem" from real property taxes in the second half as "ad valorem."

In the case of the former, as in 1798, slaves, for example, were taxed for war preparations with France as personal property. It didn't matter, however, how much one had invested to purchase the slave. Each one was simply taxed at 50 cents. Similarly a tax assessor would count the windows on your house, your horses, your cows, chickens etc. (unless you hid them well) and total them up by kind and assess the appropriate tax, which inhered in the thing, "in rem," not in the value, "ad valorem."

The latter is how the federal government in the 19th century was able to get around the onerous requirements of apportioning direct taxation of property equally according to state population. Instead of the arduous task of trying to tax the whole general sum of an individual's wealth in every state on an equal basis, the value of beer, wine and liquor, for example, produced anywhere could thereby be taxed everywhere the same, proportionally according to its value. In this way there was no need to divide the necessary revenue to be raised according to the population of the individual state, since the basis was the same everywhere beer was sold.

Such taxation is often called an excise, generally understood to fall on domestic produce. We still pay excises to this day, for example everytime we fill up the gas tank, 18 cents on the gallon to the feds. In truth excises are just a special kind of sales tax. A tariff is similar, but taxes foreign imports.

When it comes to the problems of farmers in the late 19th century, who eventually made league with Prohibitionists to install the Income Tax in 1913, theirs was a two-fold problem. Not only did the cost of financing state government fall heavily on them because of property taxation in the state in which they lived, federal excises on their produce represented a double "property tax" whammy. Think tobacco excises.

Viewed from this perspective, government at all levels, it seemed, got them coming and going.

To his credit, Herman Cain is trying to imagine a world in which government gets it for a change, instead of the taxpayer. His way of trying to make that happen is to play human desire to consume off of human desire to avoid paying taxes, by making what we consume each and every day the scene of a skirmish in the battle for limited government, which cannot exist without self-restraint.

The 1913 Income Tax Enabled Stark Increases to Government Revenues to Pay for WWI

Revenues went up by a factor of 6 in three short years, and dramatically reversed federal reliance on tariffs, excises and other taxes of one kind or another to finance the preponderance of government spending. Note the overnight reversal between 1917 and 1918 in the income tax share of the federal revenue. The analogy today would be like going from $3 trillion in revenues to $18 trillion.

Excises on alcohol started disappearing in 1920 with enactment of Prohibition. Such taxes had routinely accounted for 20-40 percent of all federal revenues from the War Between The States until that time. Over the course of a decade from 1920 through 1932 alcohol excises dropped in the end by a factor of 10, but instantly surpassed their 1920 levels with Repeal in 1933, a year in which everyone desperately needed a drink.

By 1875 One Third of Federal Revenues Came From Taxes on Alcohol

According to Daniel Okrent's Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition:

After lapsing in 1802, the alcohol excise was reimposed under James Madison to pay for the War of 1812, suspended in 1817, and then brought back by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 to finance the Civil War. This time the tax did not fade away . . . For most of the next thirty years the impost on alcohol annually provided at least 20 percent of all federal revenue, and in some years more than 40 percent. By the time the excise was doubled to cover the cost of the Spanish-American War, the brewers had finally realized that the tax they had once so strongly opposed might be their salvation, and they patriotically (and shamelessly) declared that they had financed 40 percent of the war's cost.

By way of comparison, tariffs in 1875 funded 55 percent of the federal budget. Seven years after the passage of the Income Tax, tariffs in 1920 funded barely 13 percent of the federal budget.

The significance of Daniel Okrent's recent history of Prohibition is not in the least that it shows how much federal government had depended on liquor taxes in addition to tariffs and property taxes to fund itself.

The perfidy of Prohibition is that it was brought to us by the same folks who gave us the Income Tax in the first place. They knew something would be needed to replace the federal revenue which would be lost when alcohol sales were finally banned. But when Prohibition got the boot, the Income Tax did not.

So the flipside to the Temperance movement is its Intemperance toward the original intent of the constitution, which was to prohibit direct taxation without apportionment by population in favor of tariffs, excises and ad valorem taxes.

Before The Income Tax, Federal Tariffs and Real Estate Taxes Punished Farmers

From a helpful history of the estate tax from the IRS, here (emphases added), which is unaware of the significant federal revenue contributed by alcohol taxes (between 30 and 40 percent):

The War Revenue Act of 1898

Throughout the last half of the 19th century, the industrial revolution brought about profound changes in the U.S. economy. Industry replaced agriculture as the primary source of wealth and political power in the United States. Tariffs and real estate taxes had traditionally been the primary sources of Federal revenue, both of which fell disproportionately on farmers, leaving the wealth of industrialists relatively untouched. Many social reformers advocated taxes on the wealthy as a way of forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share, while opponents argued that such taxes would destroy incentives to accumulate wealth and stunt the growth of capital markets.

Against this backdrop, a Federal legacy tax was proposed in 1898 as a means to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War. Unlike the two previous Federal death taxes levied in times of war, the 1898 tax proposal provoked heated debate. Despite strong opposition, the legacy tax was made law. Although called a legacy tax, it was a duty on the estate itself, not on its beneficiaries, and served as a precursor to the present Federal estate tax. Tax rates ranged from 0.75 percent to 15 percent, depending both on the size of the estate and on the relationship of a legatee to the decedent. Only personal property was subject to taxation. A $10,000 exemption was provided to exclude small estates from the tax; bequests to the surviving spouse also were excluded. In 1901, certain gifts were exempted from tax, including gifts to charitable, religious, literary, and educational organizations and gifts to organizations dedicated to the encouragement of the arts and the prevention of cruelty to children. The end of the Spanish-American War came in 1902, and the tax was repealed later that year. Although short-lived, the tax raised about $14.1 million. [About 2.5 percent of the federal budget].

Another Way to Spell 'Hyprocrite' is 'TARP Republican'

"I redefined the Republican Party."

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

America: Phoenix Rising From the Ashes

From Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, here, not in the least because our own energy supplies and manufacturing are coming back, on top of all this:

The global depression will grind on as much of the Western world tightens fiscal policy and slowly purges debt, and as China deflates its credit bubble.

Yet America retains a pack of trump cards, and not just in sixteen of the world’s top twenty universities.

It is almost the only economic power with a fertility rate above 2.0 - and therefore the ability to outgrow debt - in sharp contrast to the demographic decay awaiting Japan, China, Korea, Germany, Italy, and Russia.

Europe's EMU soap opera has shown why it matters that America is a genuine nation, forged by shared language and the ancestral chords of memory over two centuries, with institutions that ultimately work and a real central bank able to back-stop the system.

The 21st Century may be American after all, just like the last.

The Velocity of Money is Retarded by Government

Especially by rules governing the timing of transactions, and also by rules distinguishing one kind from another.

Both should be voided in tax reform, equalizing them in order to establish a level playing field between investment gain and wage gain.

Capital gains held less than a year vs. more than a year? Out. Tax all capital gains at one low rate, regardless of time held. To do otherwise inhibits price discovery.

Capital gains on real estate held less than two years vs. two or more? Out. Tax all such gains at the same low rate as any other capital gain, regardless of time held.

Rates different for unearned capital gains from ordinary earned income? This distinction distorts the one in favor of the other. Both kinds should be taxed at the same low rate in order to discover which makes more sense to the investor at the time, based on market conditions. Government should not interfere with the conditions.

Rep. Newt Gingrich Gets Blame For Housing Legislation Which Led To Bubble

Rep. Newt Gingrich was instrumental in turning the American dream into the American nightmare.

Under Gingrich's leadership in the US House as Speaker he spearheaded the drive to turn our homes into a mere commodity which could be flipped over and over again free of capital gains tax. And as everyone now knows only too well, commodities go up, and commodities go down.

From his Wikipedia entry:

In 1997 President Clinton signed into effect the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which included the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history. Under the act, the profits on the sale of a personal residence ($500,000 for married couples, $250,000 for singles) were exempted if lived in for at least 2 years over the last 5. (This had previously been limited to a $125,000 once-in-a-lifetime exemption for those over 55.) There were also reductions in a number of other taxes on investment gains. Additionally, the act raised the value of inherited estates and gifts that could be sheltered from taxation. Gingrich has been credited with creating the agenda for the reduction in capital gains tax, especially in the "Contract with America", which set out to balance the budget and implement decreases in estate and capital gains tax. Some Republicans felt that the compromise reached with Clinton on the budget and tax act was inadequate, however Gingrich has stated that the tax cuts were a significant accomplishment for the Republican Congress in the face of opposition from the Clinton administration.


Look what happened to housing in 1997 after the legislation became law according to the Shiller index:

After four decades of relative price stability in real terms, the dramatic tax change Gingrich championed helped develop one of the most notable bubbles in American history, as well as a banking crisis and unemployment the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1930s.

Whether it's Herman Cain's 999 Plan or a Flat Income Tax, The Current Code Must Go

So says Steve Forbes, here, who reminds us why that is:

The federal income tax code and all its attendant rules and regulations -- almost 10 million words and rising.

The code has been changed 14,000 times since 1986; last year alone there were 500 changes. The cost of compliance is horrific. The IRS itself calculates that we spend more than 6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms, the equivalent of almost 3 million full-time jobs. The Tax Foundation calculates that by 2015 annual compliance will be costing the American people some $483 billion a year.

Herman Cain's So-Called Abortion Flip Was Nothing of the Kind: He Clearly Endorsed Private Choice For Adoption, Not Abortion.

What it was was a poor attempt to entrap the still too trusting Herman Cain to make it appear that his position on abortion is incoherent.

The transcript of the controversial interchange shows Herman immediately grasped Piers Morgan's attempt to bait and switch when Herman TWICE interjects the comment "you're mixing two things," namely "bringing up the baby as her own" and "abortion."

The media and the left, like Ed Kilgore of The New Republic here, are hoping that if they repeat their lie enough that we'll all believe it.

Piers Morgan starts talking about abortion, and suddenly introduces a hypothetical about raising a child who was conceived in a rape "as her own":

MORGAN: Abortion. What's your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here's why --

MORGAN: No circumstances?"

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates -- some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but --

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying -- again, it's a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you've had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You're mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You're mixing --

MORGAN: That's what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively -- you might be president. You can't hide behind now the mask, if you don't mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don't. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That's a very interesting departure --

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: -- from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

There is absolutely nothing controversial here about Herman Cain saying a president has no business telling people to raise such a child as their own.

And Rick Santorum should be ashamed of himself for piling on.

Incidentally, Herman is correct about the relative rarity of the adoption question: statistics show just under 250,000 total children per year waiting to be adopted and adopted, in about equal numbers.

That's because our advanced civilization murders about 1,210,000 unborn children every year.

Gaddafi in the Meat Locker

"Beauty, wit, high birth, desert in service,

Love, friendship, charity are subject all

To envious and calumniating time."

Muammar Gaddafi's Fingers

"If I was an Arab dictator and a western politician shook me warmly by the hand, I would count my fingers."

-- Simon Jenkins, The UK Guardian, 22 Feb. 2011, here.

Except the two-faced meddling hypocrites of the west had plenty of company: