Posted on 10/12/2011 7:04:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Breitbart TV, the soundbite of the day from tonight’s debate. Is she right? According to Josh Barro (via our pal Karl), maybe so:
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan includes a personal income tax, a business tax, and a sales tax, all at flat rates of nine percent. Bruce Bartlett critiques the plan in the New York Times today, and he flags a fact about the business tax that I hadn’t been aware of:
“The business tax in the Cain plan bears no resemblance to the present corporate income tax. The tax would apply to gross sales less dividends paid and all purchases from other companies, including investment goods. Thus, there would be no deduction for wages.”
This is far more similar to a value-added tax than to a corporate income tax. And indeed, the description on Cain’s website matches Bartlett’s, saying the business tax would apply to “Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders.” One question is what Cain means by “gross income,” but I think he has to mean something like gross revenue–anything that looks like a profits concept would already exclude “purchases from other businesses” and so they would not be there to deduct.
In other words, in effect he’s proposing both a sales tax and a de facto VAT that’ll operate as a second sales tax on top of it. I’m not sure Bachmann realizes that or else she would have nailed him on it right here. Bad enough that Congress gets to play with one new “invisible” tax on consumers, but two?
“So find a new attack line cause that one is completely baseless.”
Sorry, anyone who has observed how “small” VAT taxes in Europe have now morphed into levies measured in double-digit percentages cannot be sanguine about giving Congress the opportunity to tax sales of goods and services. Notably, VATs have NOT displaced income taxes but simply became a very convenient vehicle for grabbing more income when raising income taxes to even higher levels would have been politically impossible. Yes, there’s a difference between an “invisible” VAT and Cain’s 9% tax, but I fear you fundamentally overestimate Congress’s ability to exercise self-control when handed this MASSIVE new vehicle for grabbing revenue.
Look, glad you love your candidate but do try to keep it rational. This attack line on 9-9-9 is nonsense
It is much hard to raise taxes under 9-9-9 then it is now. Everything you complain about can be done right now under the existing code easier then it would be under 9-9-9
Maybe congress will start with 9-9-9 and pass 18-18-18 except for those that eat eco-friendly foods and dont smoke and see the doctor, they will get 9-9-9.
Exactly. His plan in essence is nothing more then a new method of raising revenues. Would it really end up being better then just a careful pruning of the current system and closing all the big loop holes, in order to collect adequate revenues. I don’t have the answer of course. A balance budget amendment to the Constitution is so important. They all in general talk such vague points on most of the issues. Hard to decide for me at this point who in the reality might be the best choice.
Thanks for your input. Numbers can be read many different ways and I don’t question your figures (except my children are grown and your 5.65% doesn’t include the med payroll tax and is why I listed 7.5%). Would employers give their share of FICA/Med to their employees if they were no longer required to pay out? Some won’t but most would. Would a corporation that didn’t have to pay the 35% corporate tax reduce their prices? Some won’t but most would. Why? Because competition drives the market. Supermarket owner realizes he can sell ground beef for 30 cents less because of reduced imbedded taxes will pass it along in order to garner more sales. The store across the street will follow suit, etc. That’s free market and that’s why reduced costs will equate to reduced prices. The biggest selling point of a national sales tax is EVERYONE buys something including illegals, criminals and people with no income. Everyone pays for the infrastructure of this country and that’s what makes it fair.
Citizen Cain may not have the 999 down perfectly, but he is certainly on the right track and worthy of our attention.
Other than wishful thinking what can you base that on?
Would a corporation that didn’t have to pay the 35% corporate tax reduce their prices? Some won’t but most would.
But again, assuming that would result in a 26% reduction in prices is hopelessly naive. Different companies have different profit margins. If supplier A has a gross of $1 billion and a 20% profit margin then in your perfect world they may reduce their costs to their customer by maybe 5% ($70 million - %18 million / $1 billion). If supplier B has a 10 percent profit margin on the same gross then the percent that they may reduce their prices by is cut in half. That's assuming you see any cut at all. Regardless, the suggestion that reducing tax rates from 35% to 9% will result in a 26% drop in the cost of the goods we buy and that that will offset the increase in taxes for most people makes no sense at all.
Citizen Cain may not have the 999 down perfectly, but he is certainly on the right track and worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately most of the assumptions he makes are flat our wrong.
Actually it did. Congress lowered the individual FICA to 5.65 back in January and that's where it's at right now. The employer rate remained at 7.65%.
When did he backpeddle? When I heard him it was his vow not to appoint a Muslim to his administration or the judiciary period. No qualifier.
Nein/Nein/Nein.....
Frankly, I don’t really care if Cain’s plan is questionable. As he observed about abortion, Congress is the one that advances legislation: the President just signs or vetoes it.
The 9-9-9 Plan is just a plan without Congressional support. What it does do is show that Cain will sign out-of-the-box tax and revenue bills, giving us hope for reform.
Establishment candidates will preserve the Establishment. Cain is a Tea Party candidate, even if it’s ‘proved’ that the 9-9-9 Plan is totally impractical.
Impractical and politically unfeasible are two different things to me. I usually don't like candidates that promise things they cant deliver like this, but 9-9-9 is worth debating.
I pinged you on another thread to point out that giving voters more popular candy when they are losing their jobs for votes is just more Bush/Obama BS. That is Obama's whole campaign now.
What I find sorely missing is a real debate on what can make us more competitive so we don't have to be terrified of trade deals like we are now.
“Everything you complain about can be done right now under the existing code easier then it would be under 9-9-9”
Well, actually, no it can’t. The federal government has no authority to impose a general sales tax or VAT. And central governments have had such authority only within the past half century, yet now a growing number of such countries have VATs of 25% or more. Indeed, every country in Europe is required to have a VAT of at least 15%!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/31/vat-brief-history-tax
The point being, once you put such a tax on the books, politicians quickly abuse the privilege.
“Agree she seems to be the only one with any logic and has some good ideas.The rest of them are just pipmping for the job.”
I still Like and Support Bachmann myself. But she slipped in polling for a bunch of reason. But one of the main one was goofy Rick Perry was brought into the race to try and take, and it worked, her base and it worked and to defend herself she self imploded.
Some might consider me a conspiracy guy over these next comments but I think Rick only said the social security comments to get more support. He came off as Ron Paul too.
Still Herman Cain is the one who is now doing well and I liked him as well. He was always my second choice of the field. Therefore I am split on these comments. I myself have been defending the 9-9-9 plan. But I myself know undo8ing the tax code will be a massive task. Repealing the 16th amendment is a big task. But I like the boldness of the plan.
Basically, the race has become every candidate for himself. yet what has bothered me about Bachmann of late is she hasn’t attacked Romney, but neither has Cain. It bothers me. But I wanted Bachmann to go after Perry. it worked as perry lost ground and he imploded on his own. But now Romney has to be the focus and he’s not. So both Bachmann and Cain are not hammering Romney.
But now it has come to where maybe Cain and Bachmann may not be in “working” relationship that could be good enough to have one win the nomination then the other help out in some way. But we’ll see.
Santorum is good in debating other candidates. But he has become a loose cannon.
Agree Basically, the race has become every candidate for himself.
I hope people don’t fall into the media trap again and let the media steer them who to vote for.People need to look at the candidates record not the speech.
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.