Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obamas 9-9-9 Tax Cut | For the Blind
Natural Born Conservative ^ | October 30, 2011 | Larry Walker Jr

Posted on 10/29/2011 11:14:22 PM PDT by NaturalBornConservative

By proof, policies have consequences - The 999-Plan will create a host of unintended social problems which naturally occur on the other end of Laffer’s curve. Giving average tax cuts of $487,300 to 95% of people making over $1 million per year, and increasing the tax burden on the working poor and middle-class, solves nothing. Yes I am a conservative, and if you don’t believe it then read the rest of my blog. I’m not too sure how to classify Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan, but from my point of view, 9-9-9 is not a conservative plan, and not something that conservatives should even be considering. Had Mr. Cain not risked his entire campaign upon this flimsy reed; he might have had my support. But even if Herman Cain is somehow able to win the Republican Party nomination, I’ll be casting my vote for the first viable 3rd party candidate.

Source:

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

Related:

3rd Concern with the 9-9-9 Plan

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Sham


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: cain; elections; politics; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: newzjunkey; NaturalBornConservative

NJ, did you bother to look at NBC’s comparison based on Obama’s actual return? The answers to your questions are right there.


21 posted on 10/30/2011 5:59:01 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EandH Dad
  I drove to a couple of the Flat-Tax/National Retail Sales Tax debates between Dick Armey and Billy Tauzin a few years ago (1998). I became convinced that the NRST was the best way to go. The idea of April 15 becoming just another spring day stuck with me.
22 posted on 10/30/2011 6:00:35 AM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornConservative
Every time the politicians fiddle with taxes, they always cut taxes more for the poor and raise taxes more on the rich. Every single time. EVERY TIME. So, over time, by tinkering with the tax rates we wind up with our current system in which almost half the country pays no income tax at all and almost all of the tax is paid by the top ten percent.

How do you propose we fix this? By cutting taxes disproportionately on the lower end of the scale? Again? Did I mention that this is what is always done?

23 posted on 10/30/2011 6:11:11 AM PDT by sportutegrl (Everyone should have to face the tax man. Even people on welfare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Got it exactly backwards.

Without tax reform any spending cuts you made are meaningless. Reagan cut and cut and cut, and by the end of his Presidency the spending was ALL back at higher levels then when he came in.

Unless you fundamentally attack the root issues, like the tax code, any “reform” the next President implements will be stop gap and transitory.


24 posted on 10/30/2011 6:25:45 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornConservative

Not sure I see your point. Is your point that:
- Some who now pay higher taxes will pay *less* taxes
- Some who now pay *no/few* taxes will pay some/more taxes?
- Is it a “rich vs poor” argument?
- Is it that govt needs more/less revenue?

So far, all you’ve pointed out is the glaring obvious — that 9% income tax is less than 35% (or whatever) and more than 0%.

Might want to clarify or bottom-line your point. It’s not all that clear.


25 posted on 10/30/2011 6:29:59 AM PDT by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Reagan cut taxes (from obscene levels for the investor class) but wasn’t able to rein in spending. His policies increased revenue coming in, but couldn’t contain spending.


26 posted on 10/30/2011 6:35:44 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jaydee770

To be clear, my concern with Cain’s plan is that it adds yet another avenue for the Fed Govt to dip into my wallet. Has the Fed govt *ever* shown a willingness to repeal a tax? My fear is that the income tax will continue intact and the next Dem majority will have a field day with *two* ways into my wallet.

But as far as Cain’s rates not being progressive according to income levels (which I *think* is your complaint)— a flat rate (whether income or consumption tax) is a fair, level playing field for everyone regardless of success. It neither punishes nor rewards. You are entitled to succeed as much (or as little) as you dare without the govt trying to artificially throttle or boost your endeavors. It reinforces equality in opportunity (freedom) rather than equality in outcome (communism).

I would just rather there be one flat tax (income or consumption), but not both.


27 posted on 10/30/2011 7:07:33 AM PDT by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornConservative

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” ~attributed to Benjamin Franklin

Right now we have a system that rewards failure and punishes success, a system that crushes innovation and tears as the very heart of our economic system by penalizing small businesses.

Do I care if some of the rich are going to get richer with 999? No.

I see the potential for ALL of us to live in a thriving economy. The potential for ALL of us to benefit from less regulations. THERE WILL BE LESS POOR PEOPLE.

Damnit, my husband and I have each dreamed of opening our own small businesses after he gets out of the army. In this economy, our dreams are DOA. 999 will bring us back from the brink and allow us to ALL flourish.

So I’m supposed to kill my dreams just because Obama will benefit from the new tax code, too?

I’m not stupid enough to cut off my nose just to stick it to Obama.


28 posted on 10/30/2011 7:48:12 AM PDT by Marie (Cain 9s Have Teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Reagan cut taxes (from obscene levels for the investor class) but wasn’t able to rein in spending. His policies increased revenue coming in, but couldn’t contain spending.

I love Ronald Reagan but not because of his fiscal policies.

He was strong on American defense and kicked the air traffic controllers in the balls but his fiscal policies were not all that great.

He didn't cut taxes on the investor class {I was one and was making mid to upper six figures every year, and from 1974 until 1984 I didn't pay a single dime in Federal Income tax.}

The tax rates were extremely high but if you were making large bucks, you just invested in tax shelters, like real estate, gas and oil wells and tax leveraged leases.

When RR lowered the rates they also eliminated the shelters and then they added the AMT, was when I first had to pay Fed Income tax in over 10 years.

In 1979 my then 16 year old daughter, working at a fast food joint, was very pissed that she had to pay income tax and I, driving a Mercedes 500, leased and being written off, earning several hundreds of thousands and owning multiple properties and millions of dollars worth of computers didn't have a single cent due and in fact had a tax loss carry forward.

I didn't write the laws, but I{and my tax accountant} did use them to my benefit.

Ronald Reagan raised more revenue by eliminating tax shelters, which while the demonRATS claimed they hated the changes, they knew would increase revenue, giving them more to spend, which they did and Reagan let them do it.

Let's not make RR a saint, he was the best conservative of my life time and while I didn't violently object to paying Income tax, {I didn't do it voluntarily and I won't pay a dime more than I am forced to, and have been audited over a dozen times} I was never confused as to which tax system was more to my benefit.

I think the 9-9-9 tax reform plan will cost me a little more but will really get the economy moving, and at least has forced the politicians to seriously look at both tax revenues and entitlement spending, which is the biggest problem we face as a country.

29 posted on 10/30/2011 8:23:23 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the Terrorists Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Marie

And when you come to understand that your taxes will rise to make up the revenue shortfall that 9-9-9 will create, then you will understand. I run a small business now. My taxes will rise under the 9-9-9 Plan, as will many small business owners, and middle class families who can barely afford the taxes they pay now. 9-9-9 is not a solution to our present dillemma, and yes, the end of the republic will be swift when social security and medicare benefits no longer have a revenue source, and as tax revenues decline from their present level by $600 billion or more, and as federal spending continues on at the present level. Do you really think you’ll be getting a tax cut? Have you even bothered to run the numbers? Thry asking an accountant if you are incapable.


30 posted on 10/30/2011 8:46:51 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

Wrong. When you remove a 15.3% payroll tax, a 35% corporate tax, and a 35% individual tax and replace it with 9-9-9 it doesn’t measure up. See my last two posts.

In order for the Obamas to make up the shortfall they would have to spend $14,755,022 on items subject to the 9% national sales tax. Take the tax cut of $1,327,952 and divide it by 9%. That’s almost 2.6 times their current gross income. So unless the Obamas run out and buy a new house or new car or figure out how to spend 3 times more than they make on sales tax related goods, that revenue will never come back ‘from them’. The government will either go broke, or the middle class, those making $50K to $75K will really end up paying $4,300 more in taxes just like the Tax Policy Center said.

As you know (or maybe not), not all of the Obamas income is from wages paid by an employer. Actually all $374,460 of his wages were paid by US taxpayers. The other 9% tax on his self-employed business income is already included in the table, and this data is from his actual tax return. Obamas business didn’t really have any expenses, so no sales tax was collected there.

So did taxing the Obamas self-employed business income the other 9% make up the shortfall? No.

So do you want to tax the federal government the other 9% on Obama’s wages too? Do federal state and local governments even pay income taxes? No. So what tax return will they not be allowed to deduct wages from?

So when it comes to government workers, their employers will not pay the other 9%, because their employers don’t pay income taxes. And when it comes to the self-employed, and small business owners some will benefit and some won’t. Those who make more than $330K will clearly pay less in overall taxes under 9-9-9, everyone else will pay more. That’s why this dog won’t hunt.


31 posted on 10/30/2011 9:11:45 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
Sound familiar? It sure does.
32 posted on 10/30/2011 9:15:27 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham

The current tax code is the product of Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986. So is Reagan the bad guy now? I don’t have a problem with the basic bedrock of the Internal Revenue Code. What I do have a problem with is some of the tax credits, and other special interest gimmicks added to the code since 1987. A lot of that stuff could be stripped out through legislation, as I indicated in my first 9-9-9 post, that few dared to read. It doesn’t require throwing out the baby with the bath water for some newfangled gimmick.


33 posted on 10/30/2011 9:31:27 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jaydee770
It was really a continuation of:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2799831/posts

"Mr. Cain’s main argument against the fact that his plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich is that, “it does no such thing.” But what does that mean? Simply stating “it does no such thing” doesn’t satisfy the anxiety. The real concern is that since the top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all income taxes, and because the 9-9-9 Plan reduces their tax rate by 74%, while at the same time exempting empowerment zone residents, that either a greater burden of taxes will be borne by the middle class and working poor, or the United States will go down in flames in a matter of weeks instead of years."

Sorry, I should have pointed that out. I just put the related links at the bottom of the post.

34 posted on 10/30/2011 9:54:40 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornConservative
***Updated***

Even our brightest may be deceived! ~Anonymous Blogger -

By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

Continued from: 3rd Concern with the 9-9-9 Plan -

Mr. Cain’s main argument against the fact that his plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich is that, “it does no such thing.” But what does that mean? Simply stating “it does no such thing” doesn’t satisfy the anxiety. The real concern is that since the top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all income taxes, and because the 9-9-9 Plan reduces their tax rate by 74%, while at the same time exempting empowerment zone residents, that either a greater burden of taxes will be borne by the middle class and working poor, or the United States will go down in flames in a matter of weeks instead of years.

According to a study on GOP flat tax proposals conducted by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the 9-9-9 Plan would cause '95 percent of people making $1 million or more to receive tax cuts averaging $487,300'. The dilemma is that since Mr. Cain claims his plan to be revenue neutral, that is to say, the amount of total taxes collected today will be the same under his plan, then where will the money come from to make up the shortfall? You guessed it! From the same study conducted by the Tax Policy Center –

“Only 16 percent of people making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would get a tax cut, averaging $1,959, and at least 70 percent of people in this middle-income category would see their average federal taxes rise by $4,326.”

So I guess Mr. Cain better hope that the middle class, who are busy working everyday and taxed enough already, aren’t paying too much attention to his claims. But I don’t think that’s the case. Perhaps Mr. Cain needs to go back to the drawing board. So here's what the Obamas actual 2010 tax return would look like against the 9-9-9 Plan.

When you remove a 15.3% payroll tax, a 35% corporate tax, and a 35% individual tax and replace it with 9-9-9 it doesn’t measure up. In order for the Obamas to make up the shortfall they would have to spend $14,755,022 on items subject to the 9% national sales tax (take the tax cut of $1,327,952 and divide it by 9%). That’s almost 3 times their current gross income. So unless the Obamas run out and buy a new house or new car, or figure out how to spend 3 times more than they make on items subject to the sales tax, that revenue will never come back from them. The government will either go broke, or the middle class - 70% of those making $50,000 to $75,000 - will really end up paying $4,326 more in taxes, just like the Tax Policy Center said.

As you know (or maybe not), like many others, not all of the Obamas income is from wages paid by an employer. Actually all $374,460 of his wages were paid by US taxpayers. The other 9% tax on his self-employed business income is already included in the table. Obama's business didn’t really have any expenses, so no sales tax would be collected there. So did taxing the Obamas self-employed business income the other 9% make up the shortfall? No. So will the 9-9-9 Plan tax the federal government for the other 9% on Obama’s wages in addition? No.

Does the federal, or do state and local governments even pay income taxes? No. So under the 9-9-9 Plan, what tax return will government entities not be allowed to deduct wages from? When it comes to government workers, their employers will not be paying the other 9%, because their employers don’t pay income taxes. You can add tax exempt organizations to that list as well. And when it comes to the self-employed, and small business owners some will benefit and some won’t. Those who make more than $330K will clearly benefit more under 9-9-9, while most everyone else will pay higher taxes. That’s why this dog won’t hunt.

By proof, policies have consequences - The 999-Plan will create a host of unintended social problems which naturally occur on the other end of Laffer’s curve. Giving average tax cuts of $487,300 to 95% of people making over $1 million per year, and increasing the tax burden on the working poor and middle-class, solves nothing. Yes I am a conservative, and if you don’t believe it then read the rest of my blog. I’m not too sure how to classify Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan, but from my point of view, 9-9-9 is not a conservative plan, and not something that conservatives should even be considering. Had Mr. Cain not risked his entire campaign upon this flimsy reed; he might have had my support. But even if Herman Cain is somehow able to win the Republican Party nomination, I’ll be casting my vote for the first viable 3rd party candidate.

Source:

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

Related:

3rd Concern with the 9-9-9 Plan

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Sham

35 posted on 10/30/2011 11:03:33 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

[If Obama’s tax picture were that of a small business, it would have a huge tax burden lifted, with which to hire, expand, and/or lower the prices of its product or service. In the sense that the 999 plan would benefit largely private sector players, your example is misleading.]

Obama’s tax return actually includes a small business. So what product will be cheaper after he gets this tax cut? Maybe he’ll be able to sell his next book for $9.99 instead of $17.13, eh?

People need to get real. Most businesses like mine will see a tax hike, not a tax cut. Since the business pays 7.65% in social security and Medicare taxes now, and will pay 9% on wages under Cain’s plan, even if we post a net loss for the year, prices will not be going down. If anything, I’ll have to raise prices by 2% to keep from going broke.

9-9-9 might be a good plan for companies who manufacture a product, but we don’t manufacture products in America. Almost everything around me is stamped made in China, and that’s not going to change overnight. What works for manufacturing businesses won’t work in the service sector, or for the broader, non-manufacturing American economy.


36 posted on 10/30/2011 11:14:23 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

“...they always cut taxes more for the poor and raise taxes more on the rich...”

Certainly there are some misguided politicians who earnestly believe they are doing the right thing by spoiling the poor. But the bulk of the elected class would likely favor the rich and demonize the poor should the perceived size of their voting populations someday be reversed.

Relativism is the enemy of true fairness. Which is why progressives love it. It defines the need for their existence.

For a thing to be truly fair it needs to be objective. Which is why, in America, we have traditionally valued objective law. Lady Justice is not wearing a blindfold because she saw Lady Gaga do it. Hell no. The Founders put it there to affect a lack of recognition of persons or classes which appear before her. Rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, politician or human... all are equal before the blind (objective) law.

To be progressive is to enlist in the army of the small-minded whose duty it is to make war on that pesky blind fold.

To we logic-based creatures (I’m a programming ‘geek’ too) their nectar is our poison - the endless loop. By definition the equality which progressives seek cannot be achieved. Which conveniently gives them an endless excuse to make things a little more right (in their entirely subjective opinion) than they found them, but never totally right. To progress, but to never succeed is the life of those whose highest values are in perceived efforts and gifted esteem.

They attack those who are rich in material and leave us all poorer in freedom.

Regardless which candidate you support, as a fellow ‘geek’ I assume you will not fall victim to the illogical thinking that has claimed even many Freepers, including this thread’s author. They are measuring one plan or another based NOT on conservative principles but rather on typical political reasonings such as how changes from the current corrupt system affects their own personal special interests: mortgage deductions, child deductions, SS checks, etc.

Cain wasn’t my first pick, but I’d take him over Romney or Perry. Were I his adviser, he’d ignore the other wannabes and make more bold, news tempting statements directly targeting Obama’s hypocrisy and class warfare. Stuff like:

“9-9-9: Everybody’s skin equally in the game.”

...and...

“Vote for him if you hate the rich, vote for me if you want to join the rich.”


37 posted on 10/30/2011 12:24:15 PM PDT by BuddhaBrown (Path to enlightenment: Four right turns, then go straight until you see the Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NaturalBornConservative

You’re still not getting it.

In your table, his full income including wages and business profits is taxed only at the personal level. The 9% Business tax would ALSO apply to his profits and wages, since they are not deductible from total business revenue. If it was a corporate structure, and the profits were passed to him as Dividends, then they would be taxed only once at the individual level. But without the corporate structure paying out dividends, the business tax applies to all of it, then the individual income tax applies to all of it AGAIN. Then when it is spent, it is taxed AGAIN, except there is less to spend because it was taxed away by the business and individual taxes.

As you know (or maybe you don’t), the existing 15.3% Payroll tax doesn’t apply to all wages. It only applies to the first $106K of wages, and only the Medicare 2.9% rate applies to the other $268K of wages. Payroll tax doesn’t apply to ANY of the $5.2M in business income. So stop throwing around the 15.3% number as though it applies to all income rather than just a tiny portion of it in cases like this.

You are insincere in suggesting the FairTax appeals to you. You complain that someone with numbers like this tax return would only pay ~$1.4M under ‘9-9-9’, but under the FairTax they would only pay ~$1.2M of their $5.2M income. Probably much less since the FairTax gives them the option of paying nothing if they spend outside the country.

Same with your talk about a “flat tax above a certain exemption amount”. An exemption amount accomplishes nothing but rewarding the low income people for being low income, and guaranteeing a large pool of voters who have no skin in the game and no incentive for responsible government spending.

Your entire rant amounts to professing Marxist ideology — maintain punishingly high tax rates on successful people so you can preserve the tax-freeloaders who’ve failed at life. Rewarding failure and punishing success is the Democrat’s position. You are on the wrong website. Go back to DU where you’ll be more comfortable.


38 posted on 10/30/2011 9:04:41 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
>>You’re still not getting it.<<

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

39 posted on 10/31/2011 9:23:14 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

And who will Cain be running against in the general election? I think you’re not getting it. Cain simply plays into the rant, “Republicans just want to help the rich.” And there is no way in hell I would vote for him. I would either sit it out, or go with a 3rd party. You better give me Newt, or somebody with common sense.


40 posted on 10/31/2011 9:27:06 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (The Author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson