3rd Concern with the 9-9-9 Plan

Natural Born Conservative ^ | October 29, 2011 | Larry Walker, Jr.

[NaturalBornConservative]

Obamas 9-9-9 Tax Return for the Blind

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president-obama-2010-complete-return.pdf

[montag813]

Claim 3: The plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich.

Even if true, what's wrong with that? What does "poor" even mean anymore in 2011 America"?

[NaturalBornConservative]

I agree, but the government needs to take care of the spending problem well before talking about massive tax cuts. We do have a $14.8 trillion national debt, just lost our AAA Credit Rating, and have entitlement programs about to go bust. We just can’t ignore that and go chasing after one man’s dream, can we? It already looks like Greece around here. Making social secutiy, welfare disability and food stamp recipients pay a 9% national sales tax, while handing the well off some extra cheese is not, in my opinion, exactly fair.

[Utmost Certainty]

What’s wrong with people keeping more of their own $? Can’t believe you are posting this tripe as a serious criticism of 999, lol.

[BagCamAddict]

I agree the spending cuts need to be priority #1.

In fact, I lived 95% of my life in Oregon, where there is no Sales Tax. Periodically, someone (usually from out of state, where they were used to paying sales tax) would propose a Sales Tax. I am one of those who would vote NO on every sales tax measure that came up, no matter what the argument was in favor of it, because they NEVER simultaneously proposed to decrease some other existing tax (such as Oregon's somewhat high Property Tax). I felt exactly like you, that I was not going to vote for a new tax until they eliminated an existing tax to offset that money. When I lived there, thankfully, there were enough Native Oregonians that a sales tax never passed. But several years ago the number of non-Natives outnumbered the Natives, and that's when the voting got really lopsided to Liberal.

Anyway, I do agree with you that spending is the biggest problem, by about a 10-1 ratio.

But I don't agree with you that it's a bad thing for people who earn money to keep more of it.

I also don't agree with any of the strong arguments, either FOR or AGAINST 999, because it's just a campaign speech. It's not a reality. I do believe Cain wants fundamental change, and that's a good thing. But as Gingrich pointed out, talking about change is easy. Actual change is very, very hard. So 999, in whatever form it is being proposed now, is not what it will end up being. We can all argue the merits of 999 when or if it gets written up as proposed legislation, rather than a simple talking point on the campaign trail.

[bolobaby]

So instead of backing the specious claim that a Cain nomination would “destroy the GOP” you post... what?

A tax return showing “a taxpayer” paying less in income tax under the 9-9-9 plan? I view this as a GOOD thing - I couldn’t care less who you decide to use as the example, even Obama.

So thanks for not even trying to defend your claim.

Epic fail.

[Durus]

"Call me what you want."

I didn't call you anything although I inferred you are thin skinned which you have again demonstrated.

A sham is something that purports to be something that it’s not. And telling people they are getting a tax cut, when they are in fact getting a tax hike, is a sham.

I didn’t call anyone a liar.

Sure you did...and you just did it again.

I also will not stoop to your level of personal attacks.

I haven't made any personal attacks against you. I offered you advice which you ignored.

[SuziQ]

A lot is being made of the income tax part of the 9-9-9 plan, and how it supposedly helps the rich, but no one is mentioning the sales tax part of the plan. The ‘rich’ will end up paying much more sales tax, in overall dollars, than the poor will, simply because they have that much more money to spend. So what the country doesn’t get from the rich in income taxes, they’ll certainly get in sales taxes.

[pops88]

Please, someone, enlighten me. He has proposed a plan. He consulted experts and came up with 9-9-9. So are we all assuming he’ll make this an executive order? I’ve been seriously lost in all the arguments about this. I see someone that stepped up to the plate and proposed a solution to be looked at. Is the legislative branch now superfluous? It’s only a proposal. The bigger picture is that he’s looking at, and try to find solutions. The executive branch is not the legislative branch, except when we roll over and give it a pass on executive orders.

[NaturalBornConservative]

The rich would have to spend 3 times more than their income in order to pay enough sales tax at 9% to make up for the lost revenue compared to today's 35% rate. That's the catch. Just because one makes $5 million doen't mean one suddenly needs $5 million worth of clothing and groceries, cars or will buy a new home every year.

See: http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2011/10/obamas-9-9-9-tax-cut-for-blind.html

[SuziQ]

Frankly, I’m not interested in ‘making up for lost revenue’, because I think the government needs to learn to get by with less, anyway. I think we need to ‘starve the beast’.

[NaturalBornConservative]

***Frankly, I’m not interested in ‘making up for lost revenue’, because I think the government needs to learn to get by with less, anyway. I think we need to ‘starve the beast’.***

Not sure that’s the right attitude to have just 89 days after a major credit downgrade. I hope the “Super-Committee” doesn’t feel the same way.