Posted on 10/18/2011 12:28:10 PM PDT by Brookhaven
Economist Stephen Moore, one of the architects of presidential contender Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, said Cain needs to rework a critical component of the plan.
Cain’s plan would replace the current tax structure with a 9 percent corporate tax rate, a 9 percent personal income tax rate and a 9 percent federal sales tax. But speaking on Larry Kudlow’s radio show on Saturday, Moore said the sales tax should be replaced with a 9 percent payroll tax.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that the American people and the voters do not want a national sales tax,” he said. “[Cain’s] going to have to replace that national sales tax with a 9 percent payroll tax. And if you do that, it’s a total winner.”
The plan has been under fire from both the left and the right since Cain’s recent surge in the polls. Democrats say the plan would lower the tax burden on the wealthy while increasing the burden on the middle class, and Republicans say the sales tax opens an additional revenue stream for the federal government to abuse.
“I’m surprised how hostile people are to the sales tax,” Moore continued. “When we designed this plan, I thought people would go along with the 9 percent sales tax. But the point is they won’t. And why not just do a payroll tax? It’s the devil we know.”
At the last Republican debate, in New Hampshire, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said that if you turn the 9-9-9 plan upside down, “the devil is in the details.”
Moore, who developed the plan with economist Arthur Laffer and Wells Fargo wealth manager Rich Lowrie, said he would advise Cain to drop the sales tax, but that the plan was solid otherwise.
“I want to be very, very clear on this,” he said. “I am not bearish on this plan. If you could put in place the 9-9-9 plan, oh my God, it would be like steroids in the economy. … You would have a million jobs a month if we put this in place. … I love the concept of it … but the American people will not go for a national sales tax. They’re just afraid of it.”
Excellent points, well made.
Worse it still allows those who do not pay a thing to remain that way and double taxes to 18% for the producers.
Yes, as for the debate, bring it on! Just don’t take the first option off the table.
I actually think (hope?) that once folks such as at RedState really get into this and having something to compare to what they’re attacking (e.g., the payroll tax suggestion Moore makes here), they might come around to see the merits of the original proposal.
For one thing, after you get over the initial “hey, cool!” reaction to the Moore suggestion, it starts to feel awfully much like what we have now. And that is not a good feeling when we’ve finally got some wind in our sails of reform.
Not if it is passed through with the 2/3’s win wants required to change it.Besides do you really think the general public would go along with allowing the government to up such a visible tax that everyone pays?
Not if it is passed through with the 2/3’s vote Cain wants required to change it.Besides do you really think the general public would go along with allowing the government to up such a visible tax that everyone pays?
Whether or not some or all of a corporation’s costs savings are passed on to consumers, and when, depends upon whether the company needs to juice sales (and thinks pricing dynamics will do so), pad investors (which is not chopped liver in its follow-on consumer impact, either), etc.
This is a constantly adjusted process.
However, the overall effect of corporate costs savings is downward pressure on pricing.
“LOL… the average income in the US is $ 45,000 and you gave an example of someone making $ 100,000.”
What if we had a thriving economy and more people were earning more than $50,000 a year? What if we have fewer people impoverished and unemployed? What if more people were able to start their own small business without being crushed by regulations and taxes?
Something to think about! :)
The tax rate is 17.19% for the producers.
It's a minor point, but you wouldn't pay income taxes on the 9% that was already removed from you pay as payroll taxes. So, you would pay a 9% payroll tax on 100% of your pay, and a 9% income tax on 91% of your pay, which works out to an effective overall tax rate of 17.19%.
I don’t think your father is a freeloader.
But I would like to know if he pays any taxes on the savings he uses as his “income”? For example, capital gains taxes on stocks? Or taxes on dividends and interest, such as on a money market account?
I’m just trying to get a handle on what people mean when they talk about someone living with no income.
Sorry, I was reading through the thread and posted to you twice with the same basic questions.
I apologize for the duplicate questions.
Marie,
Ignore him, he’s a troll.
I said I was going to use $100,000, because (1) it was a round number and would make the math easier to do quickly, and (2) the percentages (which is what I was trying to get at) would be the same no matter what number I used—10,000 or 1,000,000.
You saw his response. Typical troll response. Ignore the facts and just look for something to demagogue and attack.
He’s a full fledge troll. It’s not even worth replying to his posts, because he doesn’t want to debate facts. He just wants to smear and distort.
Wrong. Cain is a rocket scientist. He figured it out. It works in Sim City, and it'll work in YOUR city.
Moore is a Cain hater. CAIN HATER!!!
Spot on.
My only concern, as I posted to you earlier, is that we use this proposal to compare to the original, not just give up on the NST.
Don’t ask, don’t tell.......he’s the accountant and considers me totally incompetant on all things financial. I’m the scientist and consider him woefully uneducated. We both root for the Yankees. Works out great.
What do you see as the cons of the payroll tax proposal?
Another point rarely recognized.
Your tag line says “Perry is the adult in the race.” and your comment on this thread was:
“Wrong. Cain is a rocket scientist. He figured it out. It works in Sim City, and it’ll work in YOUR city.
Moore is a Cain hater. CAIN HATER!!!”
Perry may be the adult in the race, but it’s clear from your comments that his supporters are the “grown men living in their mom’s basement” in the race.
I absolutely love your optimism! You go, girl!
“What do you see as the cons of the payroll tax proposal?”
(1) offers no bridge to fair tax
(2) cannot be avoided (unlike the sales tax)
(3) is a hidden tax (even if it’s on the paycheck, too many people still only look at their take home pay.
(4) may be implemented like the current system, where employer pays half (and thus it is really hidden)
(5) may become progressive in the future (I’m positive 90% of our problems with the tax code are tied back to having a progressive tax structure)
I am thinking then that your father pays various taxes on his income stream.
Many of those taxes would be restructured under 999. They would be eliminated in their present form (say, capital gains tax) and replaced with a 9% sales tax, which your father can decide to pay or not pay after necessities.
So unless you can state definitively that your father presently pays no taxes on his income stream that would be eliminated under 999, you really shouldn’t be claiming he would be “hurt” by a 9% sales tax on discretionary purchases.
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.