Posted on 10/14/2011 8:58:34 AM PDT by justsaynomore
The anti-tax Club for Growth is rising to Herman Cain's defense amid growing scrutiny of - and questions about - his "9-9-9" economic plan:
“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is both pro-growth and a good starting point on the way to a flat or fair tax,” said Club president Chris Chocola. “Eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends and combining that with huge rate cuts in both corporate and income taxes would create an unparalleled economic boom. 9-9-9 also eliminates the regulatory and compliance costs from the current tax code that suck billions out of the economy each year. It is an outline for a more prosperous and globally competitive America.”
“Those who argue against the sales tax component of 9-9-9 really miss the mark,” said Chocola. “Of course a future Congress could raise taxes above the 9% levels, but under our current monstrosity of a tax system, Congress already can raise taxes at any time and often has. It is on a path to do so yet again next year with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Herman Cain’s proposal might not be the perfect plan, but it is a truly revolutionary tax reform that would amount to a massive job creating tax cut on investments, savings, and income. Instead of tearing down ideas that would create economic growth and jobs, the other Republican presidential candidates should produce their own plans to achieve a flatter and more growth-oriented tax code. The American people deserve nothing less.”
The Club is neutral in the campaign, but this is the first time that Chocola has shored up the flank of a candidate under fire.
Agree with a lot of what you said in your post However, it's the "wild card" aspect of Cain's experience and proposals so far that make me really shy away from him.
America needs better than a "wild card" at this important crossroad.
(Think I'll put on my flame-retardent suit right now ... ;-) )
“Where are his proposals for say .... spending CUTS?”
Am I the only one who has Google?
Congress’ practical power to increase taxes would be much more limited under 999 than anything we have under our present tax code!
Under 999, everyone would pay taxes. Therefore, any congresscritter who voted to increase taxes would, unlike today, be voting to increase them on 100% of their constituents.
They would no longer be able to vote for tax increases that only affected the other guy.
Parasites would no longer be able to push their congresscritters to raise taxes on everyone else so they can get more free stuff — every tax increase would affect everybody equally.
That is vastly superior political accountability than we have now or have ever had.
We would finally have the clout we need to hold down taxes.
Can you imagine Maxine Waters voting to raise taxes on “her people” (as she calls them)?
No, she would sit around whining and lobbying for an exception for “her people.” And the rest of us would say that, except for the few empowerment zones (disaster areas), we’ve established the principle that everybody pays the same tax rate and that principle is not changing.
How could any rational, thinking citizen have made up his or her mind at this point?
But I assure you as soon as I do make up my mind on a candidate you WILL know who and my reasons for the decisions.
Hang in there --- I'll get back to you.
Imagine the Democrats trying to raise tax rates when EVERYONE has skin in the game. Ain't gonna happen.
Because 666 obviously won’t work, 777 is too sunset strippy, and 888 sounds too much like hate.
Tnat could happen much more easily *under the tax system we have now* than under 999.
Why?
Because under today’s system, about 50% of constituents of Congress do not pay any taxes whatsoever. So these congresscritters can vote to raise taxes all they want and, not only will they not get any pushback from their constituents, they’ll actually get rewarded for robbing the “rich” and delivering more free stuff to the parasites.
Under 999, EVERYONE pays taxes and everyone pays the SAME RATE. So anytime the tax rate were increased, it would impact 100% of the constituents of 100% of congresscritters.
If Congress could make a good case to the nation for raising the tax rate, then they made a good case.
If not, they get shouted down by a much more powerful contingent of We The People than the few taxpayers we have now.
And if Libs are crying now about how a flat tax “hurts the poor the most,” how will they justify raising the rate after it’s enacted?
They won’t and they can’t. Of course, they will lobby for exceptions for “the poors.” But that’s the crappola we put up with now anyway.
I believe that once we establish a national principle that everyone should pay taxes and everyone should pay the same rate that this will become a powerful force for self-regulating the tax rate.
It will become more and more the new “third rail of politics” to try to claim that some people, groups here and there, should pay a lower rate or a higher rate.
I saw that. Laughable. But pretty sad, too.
The same way millions of “advertisers” arrived at the 99 cent hamburg, the 9.99 pizza, the 29,999 chevy
Tantrum??? Really. Pretty feeble...
Bringing two businesses back from the brink of bankruptcy and making them profitable has relevant bearing on where we find ourselves today as a country. I’d take a Math major over a lawyer anyday.
Foreign policy? How much did 0bama have? Bush? Reagan? Perry? Romney?
What if Gingrich shared the ticket? That’s not out of the realm of possibility. Cain is a pretty quick study. And he has absolutely unwavering support for Israel.
He also has expereince designing weapons system for the Navy. I think he’d be crackerjack on looking at different Defense systems on contract and proposed designs and determining where they are viable or not.
Sure, there’s lots we don’t know...but don’t discount him.
You can look up his resume at your leisure.
It's got a full and lively discussion of 999 that covers a whole lot of ground that will be useful going forward in this discussion.
THanks for that, I’ll check it out.
I’ve been waitng to hear Steve Forbes weigh in on this and I guess I missed it?
That’s what would keep the national sales tax and individual tax rates low.
“The poor” would oppose tax hikes the most.
They are not going to be okay with being taxed. But the taxed are not okay with being robbed (and that’s happening, isn’t it?)
Once everybody is paying the same rate that will become the established benchmark for fairness in the country. And that’s a good thing.
I need to see an explanation of how he arrived at 999. Why not 888 or 101010, not that I’d prefer 101010?
The “9” is a number that seems small and tolerable, and is unlikely to impact major economic decisions, just like state sales tax doesn’t keep people from buying cars, and 7% realtor commissions don’t stop people from buying and selling houses.
That’s point one: it feels small, unlike “10” which is getting up there. This makes it more politically palatable, and reduces unforseen consequences (like killing the new housing industry - which deserves to take 5 years off anyway).
Point two is maybe more important. The seeming low “9” number is also more tolerable to the taxpayer, who might be tempted to cheat, or invest in complex tax reduction efforts if the number were bigger. This is the genius of spreading out the tax into three segments. If you made any single segment “27” whoever got hit by it would then strive mightily to evade or avoid it.
By reducing cheating and tax avoidance efforts, the tax will raise more than might otherwise be expected.
One cautionary note: I’m not a fan of government or taxes, and maximizing government revenue is not a “good thing” in my book. But a candidate proposing a tax plan needs to be able to show where the money is coming from. Otherwise, being specific about cuts is a good way to lose votes.
The intermediate political effect will be to start with the big spending cuts after every American is a TAXPAYER, so they can be told that if these cuts are made, the tax number goes down to 8% for all taxes. (Or that if the cuts aren’t made, the number needs to go up to 10%).
At that point, even Granny and Shaniqua will be spending hawks.
What do you think is happening here?
People are taking apart Cain’s plan, debating it and analysing it and many are concluding it’s a good solid step forward for our nation.
The fact that you may disagree with that does not mean that others are being duped, conned or are not grown-ups.
A grown-up recognizes and respects that rational people can disagree.
Ideally, the 16th Amendment would be repealed and replaced with 9-9-9 changeable only by another Constitutional Amendment—Pie in the Sky?
A Tax amendment that locks together the three “digits” of the 999 plan, and requires a supermajority to raise them would help. It could go hand in hand with a balanced budget amendment. If you can’t get a supermajority to raise the tax digit, spending cuts are mandated.
Now imagine them raising it to 30-30-30.
GOOD GOLLY MISS MOLLY, HERE WE HAVE THE POST OF THE DAY!
That is truly one for the archives.
Please make sure you save it. You will need to be reposting it, or a version of it, throughout the coming months.
Wow.
Thanks again.
Imagine that liberals took over the government and raised our marginal tax rate to 90%. But that could never happen. Oh wait, it did happen and with a Republican president.
The 90% tax rate affected only a small percent of voters, so Congress passed it without fear of political consequences.
Raising the “9” to “10” will affect EVERY American, because under the 999 plan, ALL Americans will be TAXPAYERS.
Do you now see the brilliance of this principle, and how it could transform American politics for generations?
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.