Herman Cain lashes out at 9-9-9 critics

Washington Post ^ | 14 Oct 2011 | Sandhya Somashekhar

[Atlas Sneezed]

It has been explained to you why the 999 plan has less risk of rates being raised than the current system, or any other I’ve seen a major candidate propose.

Now go save a pretzel for the gas jets! (Google it).

[DTxAg]

It has been explained to you why the 999 plan has less risk of rates being raised than the current system

You've tried, but the "explanation" is unadulterated BS. Nothing prevents the income taxes from being raised, starting with "the rich" and then everyone else, just like with the original income tax. Nothing prevents the corporate tax rates from being raised. It'll be harder to up the sales tax, but it happens all the time at the state and local level. I will never support a national sales tax unless we simultaneously get rid of the income tax. Any other way just guarantees high income and sales taxes.

[LibFreeUSA]

How does one do better with 999?

If your spouse's income is 50k, the marginal federal income tax rate currently would be 15% (see 2010 Tax table). So assuming that you had to pay federal income taxes on that 50k, today you would pay $15,000.

However, presumably your spouse had 'tax deductions' from that 50k income, so I'm pretty sure that the tax bill was not $15,000, but considerably less.

Compare what you actually paid in tax to how the 999 plan would apply, and tell me you would have paid less under 999, and how.

[DTxAg]

Tell me you would have paid less under 999, and how.

I've posted this before:

Median household income in 2010: roughly $49,500

Under Current Tax System:
1. $2,796.75 in Social Security and Medicare taxes personally.
2. $3,786.75 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from employer(s).
3. The $49,500 is treated as a business deduction, so no corporate taxes are owed.
4. Assuming a married couple filing jointly with 2 kids, there is a $11,400 deduction, and $14,600 in exemptions.
5. This gives you $23,500 in taxable income, for a total tax of $2,615. But they also get $2,000 in tax credits plus others, so they owe $0 in income taxes.
6. The household therefore takes home $46,703.25 after taxes, and the employer(s) paid $3,786.75.
7. From the employee's perspective, $5,148 has been credited in the Social Security system for the employee's retirement.

Under Cain Plan:
1. $0 in Social Security and Medicare taxes personally.
2. $0 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from employer(s).
3. The $49,500 is not treated as a business deduction, so $4,455 in corporate taxes are owed.
4. Assuming a married couple filing jointly with 2 kids, the household owes $4,455.
5. The household therefore takes home $45,045 after taxes, and the employer(s) paid $4,455.
6. From the employee's perspective, $0 has been credited in the Social Security system for the employee's retirement.
7. The 9% sales tax reduces their take-home pay to around $40,990 in spending power.

[Tramonto]

“Lashes out”. Oooh, scary. He sounds mean.

Angry black man./s

[Coldwater Creek]

I was at the Bartlett, Tn. rally today. The Post has been very accurate in describing Mr. Cain's speech.

[Tramonto]

Just like the income tax started as a very small % tax on the rich. And nothing would stop them from doing it again. And nothing would keep the corporate tax rate from rising either.

Thats a good point. In 40 years, the 9 9 9 plan could become as bad as our current tax code. Lets just keep the current system.

[DesertSapper]

CAIN!!!

[DTxAg]

Thats a good point. In 40 years, the 9 9 9 plan could would become as bad as worse than our current tax code.

Fixed it for you.

[workerbee]

I think Marie was refering to the headline, and I agreed with her question/assessment: "This is lashing out?" None of Cain's remarks quoted in the article are what I would characterize as "lashing out".

How was the crowd at the rally? I haven't committed to any candidate yet but I admit Cain interests me because he seems willing to take on the tax reform issue in a bold way and without apology.

[Tramonto]

You’re probably right. The current tax code will be much worse than it is right now in 40 years so lets just keep it.

[DTxAg]

You’re probably right. The current tax code will be much worse than it is right now in 40 years so lets just keep it.

Either fix the current system or go to a flat tax, but don't do this stupid intermediate system where we have both taxes with a promise that at some point we'll try to repeal the income tax.

[kevao]

How long do you think it will be before that 9% for "the rich" becomes 10%, or 11%, or 12%?

It's not a graduated tax. It's a flat tax. There aren't special higher rates for "rich" and special lower rates for "poor". Everyone pays the same.

So when congress tries to raise the rate, they won't be able to target just a small percentage of the people like they can now, they'll be raising the rate on *everybody*. That will be an infinitely harder task than it is now.

[DTxAg]

It's a flat tax. There aren't special higher rates for "rich" and special lower rates for "poor". Everyone pays the same.

So when congress tries to raise the rate, they won't be able to target just a small percentage of the people like they can now, they'll be raising the rate on *everybody*. That will be an infinitely harder task than it is now.

No, since 9-9-9 is just a law, not a constitutional amendment. Nothing prevents Congress from increasing the income tax on "the rich" or anyone else.

[kevao]

I'm not sure I could support cuts in government spending. After all, whats to prevent future presidents/congresses from ratcheting the spending right back up again, perhaps to levels even higher than we have now?

/sarc

[newzjunkey]

Independent analysts who pored over the plan in recent days have said it would raise taxes on the poor and middle class.

Sure they have. Where's the version to pore over? It's not on his site. That's an outline.

[DTxAg]

I'm not sure I could support cuts in government spending. After all, whats to prevent future presidents/congresses from ratcheting the spending right back up again, perhaps to levels even higher than we have now?

And how do you feel about imposing a new tax never imposed on the American people without anything limiting increases in that tax or limiting increases in the other taxes that are supposed to be reduced by implementing the new tax? How many situations like "Please Mr. Reagan sign this amnesty bill and we'll start securing the border soon" moments do you need before you realize you can't trust Congress with anything long-term, especially keeping existing taxes low? If you give Congress sales taxes and income taxes, you'll be stuck with both forever. I won't vote for anyone proposing both taxes (unless it's Cain vs. Obama, and then it's Cain all the way).

[Coldwater Creek]

It was a great crowd. Way more than expected. Lots of Blacks which is rare in Memphis for them to support a Conservative.

[kevao]

No, it will be a flat tax. Yes, they could a some point make different groups pay different rates, but they would have to fundamentally change the tax to do so. It would no longer be a flat tax.

It would also be extremely difficult to implement. Because after the 999 transition, all that will be left is the flat national sales tax. If people are going to pay a different sales tax rate based on how “rich” they are, how does one establish one’s wealth level in the check-out line at the store? The entire retail sector would grind to a halt.

[DTxAg]

No, it will be a flat tax. Yes, they could a some point make different groups pay different rates, but they would have to fundamentally change the tax to do so. It would no longer be a flat tax.

No, the idea is to eventually move to a flat tax, but that would require a constitutional amendment. Under 9-9-9, you cannot prevent Congress from changing the income tax rates on certain people. Only a constitutional amendment could prevent that.