Baloney. Cain didn't even introduce his plan until late summer. Before then he was only talking Fair Tax. His positive intensity has been high the whole time. The only thing that has changed is his name recognition.
Posted on 10/13/2011 5:19:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax reform is attracting enough attention to become the focus of this week's Presidential debate. As a plan for overhauling revenues and unleashing the private sector, it's a bold gambit that shows Cain is willing to take chances and shake up the Capital.
The 9 percent business tax is a stroke of genius. It would give us the lowest business rates in the world and would make us the "tax haven" for investment from everywhere. The stock market would barely be able to stay abreast. The 9 percent personal income rate would eliminate all the deductions and put everyone on a level playing field. Tax collection from "the rich" would skyrocket because no one would hide income anymore, but "the other 99%" would make out as well. Cain's plan would fold in the 15 percent payroll tax so the new 9 percent rate would be an improvement - but would end the immunity that the bottom half has from paying any taxes at all. Altogether a good show.
The stickler is that 9 percent national sales tax. That's where things start to fall apart....
The sales tax has long been the preserve of the states and is now imposed in all but five of them (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon). The informal arrangement has been that the federal government gets income taxes, the states get the sales tax and local municipalities are granted the property tax. Often they poach. States and even cities have imposed income taxes and have also started trespassing on the property tax. But for the federal government to demand a 9 percent sales tax would be a whole new departure. Combined with state and city levies, it puts us near 20 percent, which is black market territory.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Well said.
Office of Tax Analysis for the U.S. Treasury Gary Robbins analyzed and scored his plan and found it would “initially create 6 million jobs and that it will bring the unemployment rate down initially to about half of what it is today.”
So? He pays it, not me. It's a cost to him, not to me. It's one of the many costs of doing business.
You’d have to be pretty naive to think that your employer would try to keep this for himself any more than he’d lower your salary if federal tax rates declined.
A couple of years ago my employer cut my salary and the salaries of every other person in the company between 5% and 15% just because the company wasn't making enough money. I'm not alone in that, millions of other people saw their salaries cut or benefits cut or raises done away with. The truly naive ones are those who believe a company will raise pay just because FICA is done away with or that they will cut prices just because their expenses go down.
Beware the unintended consequences of any 999 plan.
If you ain’t paying taxes, or ain’t paying at least 9% on something, then maybe you shouldn’t be making tax policy by casting a vote that influences the issue.
If you’re claiming to be harmed under 999, post your hypothetical situation. (And please consider the posts reminding you how prices can decline when corporate and income taxes decline).
“1. EVERY American pays the tax.
2. EVERY American pays the same tax rate.”
Except the ghetto dwellers in “empowerment zones”.
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.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2791952/posts
That is a welfare to work program - or would you rather them stay on welfare???
This is the whole basis of Cain’s support - this 999 plan.
I support Cain, and would even without the 999 plan, and still will even if he were to acknowledge that it’s just a proposal, and tax policy is up to Congress.
“Please reread the argument and understand that there is a big difference in accountability when every American has a stake in how taxes are compared to today when 50% of Americans are actually egging Congress on to raise taxes on the rest of us.”
I do understand your argument, and if there was a way to have more people paying, to coin a phrase, their fair share (that is the 50% that don’t pay taxes) that would work, I would not be adverse to it. However, at certain low incomes, you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. And, I don’t believe that Cain’s 9-9-9 is the way to go at all. We are talking specifically about Cain’s plan, which, to me, has fatal flaws.
This plan is a lobbyist’s dream.
Not only that, a new house would also get slapped with an extra 9% sales tax added to it.
It also kills things like the 401K and IRA deductions. For a man who supports private retirement plans, slapping a tax on the money contributed is only going to discourage it.
And nothing repeals the tax-protected accounts. You’re just avoid less pain by using them than you were before. But their benefits remain.
And additional saving beyond the plan limits will be more attractive under the reduced rates (no cap gains under 999!) Not to mention that it can be invested in things that aren’t easily found in an IRA, like your own business.
“How can anyone accurately predict what the effects of his plan is on the average person if he’s changing it every time you turn around?”
As Romney said in the Tuesday debate, and as everyone if figuring out that is reading this thread, a simple plan doesn’t necessarily have simple answers. It’s much more complicated, and needs more thorough explanation, like Romney’s 59 point plan attempted to do. So everyone cheers Cain’s simplicity, until they find out it ain’t so simple.
Baloney. Cain didn't even introduce his plan until late summer. Before then he was only talking Fair Tax. His positive intensity has been high the whole time. The only thing that has changed is his name recognition.
130% increases in electric rates are not regressive?
It doesn’t require 180 pages to explain Cain’s plan.
So who is being deceptive, Cain or his website? And if his website in inaccurate on that point then what other proposals on it are wrong?
No, just cut welfare. Hunger is a great incentive to work.
“This will put out of business all those lobbyists who lobby for special exceptions under the income tax code.”
This needs repeating :-)
So now he is saying the ‘plan’ is a moving target?
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.