Posted on 10/12/2011 6:50:02 PM PDT by justsaynomore
As businessman Herman Cain surges atop state and national polls and becomes a top-tier presidential contender, his signature "9-9-9" plan, which calls for a nine percent tax on income, a nine percent national sales tax, and a nine percent corporate income tax, has come under scrutiny from the right and the left.
Famed supply-side economist Art Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS that Cain's "9-9-9" plan was a pro-growth plan that would create the proper conditions for America's economy to grow and thrive again.
"Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy," Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. "The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates."
Added Laffer: "Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."
Laffer also said that "such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment."
At the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Cain's plan received criticism from many of the candidates on stage.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said that Americans needed a plan that was "doable-doable-doable" when asked his opinion on Cain's "9-9-9" plan.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) said that the "9-9-9" plan was not "a jobs plan," but was rather "a tax plan." Bachmann also complained of Congress getting another revenue stream from the plan and said, "you turn the 9-9-9 plan upside down, and the devil's in the details."
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said that the "9-9-9" plan was not a passable solution.
Further, Cain has been criticized from the left as well, as charges that his "9-9-9" plan is regressive have been made, charges that Cain has often refuted by citing that the payroll tax would be eliminated under his plan and used goods would not be levied sales taxes.
As Cain's profile increases and poll numbers rise, his opponents will attack him more fiercely over his "9-9-9" plan, but it looks like Cain has found an ally in Laffer, an economist who is more than respected by fiscal, pro-growth conservatives.
I support a flat personal federal income tax and abolishing the corporate and capital gains taxes. NO sales tax, however. That could quickly turn into a VAT, a value added tax like the socialists have in Europe. No thanks.
If Herman Cain gets his 9-9-9 plan through, there will be, and then it can be raised.
That's the danger.
Clear?
>> “The 9-9-9 plan has two advantages over the current tax code when it comes to raising taxes:
1) It has a built in 2/3 vote to raise it.” <<
.
That is a pile of pure excrement.
The only way to require any 2/3 vote in congress is a constitutional ammendment.
It ain’t going to happen.
The elimination of the home mortgage deduction would destroy what's left of the housing market in America for a generation.
Plus adding an additional 9% to the cost of a home doesn't sound all that appealing either. The cost to move to pursue a job in another area will now discourage home buying because not only the agent's hickey of 6% but now another 9% (or more). That is an awful amount of vig to give up and we'll probably see far more corporate owned homes and a lot more leasing.
RE: I support a flat personal federal income tax and abolishing the corporate and capital gains taxes.
1) Are you concerned with government revenue falling significantly below the current approx $2.2 Trillion ?
2) If so, what would be the tax rate for your flat personal federal tax?
It has to be quite high (significantly higher than Cain’s 9%) if you want to maintain current revenue because you want no corporate and capital gains taxes.
RE: If Herman Cain gets his 9-9-9 plan through, there will be, and then it can be raised.
If that’s the fear, then ANY PROPOSAL MADE TO REFORM OUR TAX CODE will have the same problem.
First of all, if the base assumption is that no matter how great an idea might be, DC politicians will find a way to corrupt it… why is the 999 plan singled out for special treatment?
What makes anyone think that Romney’s 87-page PDF Economic Plan won’t also be instantly corrupted and changed?
If the assumption is that Congresscritters will instantly transform it into a basket of giveaways and boondoggles? Or even a Flat Tax?
If the starting point of evaluating any policy proposal or plan is that Congress will get in there and mess it up, I honestly don’t see any reason to support any candidate on the basis of any issue. Because we’d have to assume that his/her great idea would just be transformed into a steaming pile of dung by Congress.
One particularly amazing critique of the 999 Plan theorized that we’d have President Cain coupled to a Democrat Congress, which would then result in the 999 plan becoming the 90-90-90 plan someday.
C’mon people; are we seriously contemplating that we’d all go to work trying to get the GOP nominee elected President, but skip out on all of the other races such that we’d end up with a GOP President and a Dem Congress?
The larger point — one which I’ve raised — is that the only way that the 999 plan (or any other plan on any other issue) is not transmogrified into some atrocity is the vigilance of the electorate.
There is simply no way to trust a politician — no matter whom, no matter what — to do the right thing time and again.
The only way we as a nation can defend our rights, get the policies we want, and prevent corruption by politicians is to be vigilant against such things and to keep up the pressure on all of them to do the right thing.
What makes it any easier to raise than the taxes it replaces?
Look, pal. I’m not gonna be potus. Lets cut to the chase.
999 is going nowhere, that’s because Cain is not going to be the nominee. If you want to pose the hypothetical question, okay. My answer, it would never become law. Period. Santorum is right again.
Back to the flat tax. Different variations of a flat tax I’ve seen over the years and running the numbers, go from 17% to 23%. That goes with reducing the corporate tax and capital gains tax. Not abolishing them. That plan would be revenue neutral. Either way, spending cuts would be part of any tax reform plan.
Part of Cain’s plan was to include a provision requiring a 2./3 rds majority in Congress to change the tax rates. A rotection we do not have now.
In addition, he believes that the growth stimulated by the plan will improve the economy, create more jobs and thus bring more revenue in tot he government, making it unnecessary to rasie them
3rd he indicated that the American people are ultimatly the ones who would prevent it...as they are going to be the ones to replace Obama.
Also, Cain made sure to indicate that they years he was in as President he would veto any attenmpt.
Arguements that he is providing another “revenue stream” are offset by the fact that he is taking two others away...the inherticane tax and the capital gains tax.
Thank you for a most excellent post. I’ve been wanting to say this all day but was unable to put together anything as succinct as your post.
I swear some of these people must have opposed GWB’s tax cuts because, after all, some future congress could increase the newly decreased rates to 40%, 50%, or infinity%!
Troll.
RE: Look, pal. I’m not gonna be potus.
This is not about you or me, this is about any candidate who would propose to reform our tax code. ANY PROPOSED REFORM would necessarily FLATTEN and SIMPLIFY our tax code if not via 9-9-9, then by some other means. So if we critique Cain’s plan, we ought to discuss our preferred alternative.
RE: Different variations of a flat tax I’ve seen over the years and running the numbers, go from 17% to 23%.
I assume this will be a flat tax with NO EXEMPTIONS ( If you start adding exemptions for this or that, then we’re back to social engineering again ).
Let’s take it at 20% for simplicity’s sake.
If so, then a person earning $20,000 will pay $4,000 off the bat in taxes. A person earning $30,000 pays $6,000 and a person earning the national average of $50,000 pays $10,000.
With the current convoluted tax code with all its social engineering, many people pay almost close to nothing ( that’s why close to 50% pay no taxes ).
I’d like to ask Rick Santorum how many of these low income earners will raise their hands with this plan in place.
BTW, you do know that 9-9-9 is a transitory tax plan towards ABOLISHING INCOME TAXES ALTOGETHER in favor of a Fair Tax in the longer term..
Yep it was the Laffer curve drawn on a napkin that influenced Reagan if I remember reading correctly
Hewitt is a big faux conservative...never fails to support the Rino herd.
“What could possibly prevent 9-9-9 from becoming 12-12-12, then 16-16-16 as congress gets to tool with it over the years?”
Dont let them!
they should pass a “Taxpayer Protection Act” congressional rules and constitutional amendment that requires 2/3rds majority to raise the rates.
I thought so too. It was bizarre & made me cringe.
Oh, I’m clear. I’m clear that you don’t understand that democrats can raise ANY tax by ANY name.
If there is NO national sales tax to raise, they’ll simply look for other taxes to raise.
So it’s a straw argument. While there would be “nothing preventing” the democrats from raising a national sales tax because it exists, there is NOTHING preventing the democrats from raising the income tax - BECAUSE IT EXISTS.
Don’t you get it? It’s six of one, half dozen of another! The argument you are making is a complete canard - a total straw argument.
What you fail to realize is that the tax code is so incredibly byzantine now that the democrats SNEAK tax increases in constantly. With a 9-9-9 plan and nothing else, they wouldn’t be able to sneak anything in. It would be clear as day. That way, changes can be properly resisted.
I’ll take clarity any day of the week over the ridiculous mess we have now. Don’t you see? That’s what Cain’s plan offers: clarity.
So not only is your argument a straw one, it’s actually counterintuitive. Under the current plan it is EASIER to quietly raise taxes. Under Cain’s plan, it isn’t as easy.
I haven’t seen ANY plan from any other candidate that proposes this kind of bold simplification of the tax code. And yet people like you call it a bad thing. It’s mind-numbing.
I’m trying to figure out the logic of this argument - so we should not attempt to reform the tax system, because Congress could pass increases to the tax rates sometime later? The current tax system or any other proposal for reform of how taxes are collected would not be subject to increases in the rates?
The 666 comment was preceded with the quip that the devil is in the details. I think anyone should be able to voice an Amen to that.
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.