The night of Herman Cain’s “9-9-9 Plan"

Yahoo News ^ | 12 Oct 2011 | By Chris Moody

[ScottinVA]

NO way he stands up to the intense scrutiny, from Romney, the Dems, or the media.

You didn't watch last night's debate, did you?

[NYC-Conserv]

Does anyone here really think that a majority in the House, and the Senate, would pass a 9-9-9 plan, and totally abolish the current tax structure? Even if we take over the Senate?

I have my doubts.

[PreciousLiberty]

“My problem is 9-9-9 will eventually become 30-30-30.”

Just as the current income tax could eventually become 90% in all brackets with no deductions. How likely do you find that? What prevents it any better with just the income tax instead of consumption+business+income?

[numberonepal]

But what happens the first time a democrat....

What happens now when someone proposes to raise taxes?

[NYC-Conserv]

Admittedly, I heard it on the radio. First hour. Didn’t catch the rest.

[Blue Highway]

good point about the 999 plan eliminating the IRS. Anyone have figures on how much it cost the govt. to run that agency every year? Without that cost, it will be a nice debt reduction right there and as we see in one fell swoop we are at least moving in the right direction for shrinking govt. spending by eliminating wasteful govt. agencies.

[NoDRodee]

Agree,

I think Cain’s new Tax plan would help prevent taxes from going up all the time.

Under the current tax code we just have an income tax, one reason it is this way is because the Govt can get there money and people feel the impact of it less. If they never have the money in their hands they don’t miss it as much. They don’t feel the impact of the tax rate as much.

With Cain’s new Tax revenue stream of a sales tax people will feel more of the impact of a tax rate hike. More people would then be against higher taxes.

It would be just like this threads question, people are going to have to pay more for food every time the Dem’s want to raise taxes.

The bigger issue is preventing the plan from going to a rate of 15-15-8, of 25-25-9. My bet would be you would always see the sales tax the lowest because people have the money in their hand and they will fight against that tax rate increasing.

Like Michelle a bunch, but her claiming Cain opening up new revenue stream for the Govt to take money was off. The problem is the existing revenue streams, not the one Cain is adding.

[DTxAg]

good point about the 999 plan eliminating the IRS.

Yep, except then you get the individual income tax enforcement bureau, the corporate tax enforcement bureau, and the sales tax enforcement bureau.

[kevao]

There is that danger under any tax system — I’m old enough to remember top marginal income tax rates of 90% under the current system. So clinging to this current corrupt tax code isn’t going to protect you from greedy politicians increasing rates.

The beauty of 9-9-9 is that it is *flat*. Everyone pays the same, no loopholes, no deductions, no giveways. That means the rich and powerful will no longer be able to buy off politicians and get special deals written for them into the tax code.

True, 9-9-9 is flat only initially; it could easily bloat back into another corrupt code of loopholes and giveaways like we have now. If we let it. And if we do, then we deserve what we get.

[DTxAg]

If the legislation requires a supermajority to increase those numbers, or detach them from each other, then I’m not worried.

All you need is a simple Dem majority in each house and a Dem president, and they can pass a law repealing the 2/3 majority. Then they can raise those income taxes as much as they want in whatever "fair" way they can think of. Just said it on another thread, the 2/3 supermajority is nice PR.

[DTxAg]

Everyone pays the same, no loopholes, no deductions, no giveways.

Well no. For example, if you're an individual and business in an "empowerment zone" (like an inner city), you can get lower tax rates and better deductions.

[kevao]

Then they can raise those income taxes as much as they want in whatever "fair" way they can think of.

Can you conceive of *any* tax system under which a corrupt and greedy government could not raise rates whenever and however much it pleased?

What is your argument? That 9-9-9 is no good in principle, or that 9-9-9 is no good simply because a future government could raise the rates?

[trailz]

"She definitely said 22+5 and she definitely said 28. I made a post in the live thread about her having her hands full more than the octomom and that her household would make Octomom’s household look chaos free by comparison with 28 kids."

With all due respect, - - I'm not denying whether or not she may or may not have said it, - - I'm merely commenting that it sounds like she may have 'said' 22, - - while 'meaning' 23, - - and that 28 would be the correct real-life total either way.

The comparison to octomom may be a bit far-fetched, - - but you're plenty welcome to your opinion, I guess . . .

[DTxAg]

Can you conceive of *any* tax system under which a corrupt and greedy government could not raise rates whenever and however much it pleased?

Sure, one where the tax rates for everyone are required by Constitutional amendment to be fixed relative to each other, like "equal rates for everyone regardless of income level." Heck, I'd even take something that defines 3 tax brackets and says the highest and lowest brackets can't be more than 5 or 10% apart, with equal deductions/exemptions for everyone.

What is your argument? That 9-9-9 is no good in principle, or that 9-9-9 is no good simply because a future government could raise the rates?

My RECENT argument is that the 2/3 majority thing is PR and meaningless. It can be easily eliminated. My more fundamental argument is that you can't win a general election running with a central component of your platform being that you raise taxes on large voting blocks.

[kevao]

LOL. The idea of “empowerment zones” has been around at least since the 1980s. Jack Kemp was a big proponent of them. He called them “enterprise zones.”

I can understand if you’re opposed on principle to giving incentives for businesses to go into depressed inner city areas to try to get some economic activity going there, hopefully get some people off welfare rolls and onto payrolls.

But I wouldn’t toss out the entire 999 plan because it isn’t perfect. Question is, would it be better than the monstrous and suffocating tax code we toiling under now? I think just about anything is.

[CSM]

I still can’t figure out why he abandoned the FairTax and adopeted 9-9-9 as his preferred system. His new plan established both the sales and the income tax and we all know that “9” is only the starting point.

[DTxAg]

But I wouldn’t toss out the entire 999 plan because it isn’t perfect.

I don't. I toss it out because it increases taxes on seniors, the average family, "the poor", numerous small businesses, all businesses that operate at a loss, etc. The empowerment zone stuff just shows that this isn't an "everybody is equal" plan.

And according to numerous people on FR, the plan has no chance of ever being passed. So what is the fallback position if it fails?

[DTxAg]

I don't. I toss it out because it increases taxes on seniors, the average family, "the poor", numerous small businesses, all businesses that operate at a loss, etc. The empowerment zone stuff just shows that this isn't an "everybody is equal" plan.

Just to clarify, I would love if we all paid the same rate or even something close to the same rate. But you don't win presidential elections by increasing taxes on all these groups.

[manic4organic]

I’m stealing that!

[Rudder]

But what happens the first time a democrat gets back in office and puts the income and corporate tax back up to 30%, and then says, “Oh by the way, let’s keep that 9% sales tax as well.”?

What happens if some democrat raises all taxes to 99%?

Or what happens if people become invisible?

Or what happens if all democrats commit suicide?

I could go on literally for days, bringing up highly improbable events, or

I could get a life!

Hows about you?