So it’s your word against one of the fathers of supply side economics. Not that you don’t have valid points but I’m guessing he does too even if he didn’t share them. Since I don’t know your background I assume he has more to lose from endorsing an economic plan than you do. Nothing personal I’m sure you are extremely intelligent but it’s a matter of credentials.
I’m guessing Milton Friedman would also agree with Laffer but since he’s not alive we’ll never know. Maybe the Friedman Institute at the UoC will weigh in with an opinion.
He’s like 71 years old, so I’m not sure what he has to lose at this point.
Plus, I have a feeling is is correct in the long-term. If we HAD a tax system more like 9-9-9, it would be better. I’m not opposed to eliminating deductions — deductions distort the system, and give government power.
I don’t think the 9-9-9 itself are the numbers that will actually get the money we need, but my issue with the plan are those I mentioned. And they are mostly near to mid-term issues.
I do doubt that immediate implementation of the 9-9-9 plan would lead to immediate economic growth, because the change to the fundamental economics of everything would be like an earthquake, rocking the existing economic engine. I think it would take us at least a couple of years to recover.
I believe an incremental approach would be best, but I don’t know how you incrementally replace one system with an entirely new system.
I would note that the 9-9-9 is itself a sub-optimal answer, by Cain’s OWN analysis. It’s a compromise he has already accepted before we even start from the FairTax he actually supports, because he doesn’t think politically he can get FairTax.
But that means TWO disruptions. Plus, if 9-9-9 works “pretty well”, what economic push would there be to overcome the political obstacles of going to the Fairtax?
And I still disagree that the existing tax code has any real contribution to our current economic woes. It is a general drag on the system, and a different tax code may be a different, lesser drag, but that’s like saying you can get another mile per hour out of your sailboat by replacing the sails, when the real problem is your mast is broken.
As to my credentials, I have none. Laffer is an expert, I am a guy who got an A in economics at college. But I do think I am pretty smart, and I can evaluate how a plan will impact things, and my argument is more about the real effects of radical CHANGE.
I also doubt Laffer is looking at the political ramifications of eliminating deductions, or of changing Social Security to a government welfare program.
BTW, the day Cain is our nominee, the democrats will call 9-9-9 a plan to eliminate Social Security. And since Cain is on record for privatization of social security, and since his 9-9-9 plan also will re-tax retirement savings, and will tend to hit old people harder than young people, I believe they will be able to sink him with that line of argument.
Again, that’s a political argument.