Posted on 10/21/2011 1:13:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Huh? After weeks of repeating 9-9-9 and, in the process, making his bold and original tax reform plan common knowledge, Herman Cain today altered his slogan:
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain clarified his much talked-about “9-9-9″ tax plan Friday, saying those who fall at or beneath the poverty level would have a different plan: “9-0-9.”
Cain took heat over his proposal, which replaces the current tax code with a 9% corporate tax, a 9% income tax and a new 9% national sales tax. Opponents have argued the middle part of the plan would increase taxes on the poor, who currently pay little to no taxes.
But Cain fired back Friday, saying in a Detroit speech that those paying no taxes now would continue to pay zero taxes under his plan.
“If you are at or below the poverty level, your plan isn’t 9-9-9 it is 9-0-9,” Cain said. “Say amen y’all. 9-0-9.”
Presumably, no income tax for those at or below the poverty level was always a part of Cain’s plan — but that at least was not a commonly known detail of it. Perhaps his new jingle will ease the “political treacherousness” of proposing a flat tax, serving to underscore Cain’s concern for “income inequality” (despite his outspoken opposition to the Occupy Wall Street crowd). But, then, as Ed explained this morning, to propose a flat tax is less a political liability than some would have us think — and Cain’s new cry of “9-0-9″ undoes a little of the magic of the simplicity of his plan.
Cain today also explained his idea to create “opportunity zones.” Under this new element of his plan, in cities facing high unemployment, businesses could deduct a certain amount of payroll expenses (in addition to purchases) from their corporate taxes. That makes sense to me — but Cain’s entire speech this morning in Detroit (a city with the inordinately high unemployment rate of 14.4 percent) suggests 9-9-9, for all that it is emblazoned on the minds of those who have heard it, is subject to change. Political realities have always constrained its possibility (passage would be quite a feat!) — and the fearful prospect opened up by Rick Santorum at the Bloomberg debate a couple weeks ago of a new revenue stream for the federal government to exploit was never its strongest selling point — but nothing hints at its unfeasibility so much as the adjustments Cain seemed to make to it this morning. He’d like those numbers 9-9-9 to be inflexible, but, already, they aren’t. “Say amen y’all. It’s 9-0-9.” “Amen” frequently follows “forever and ever.” That’s clearly not the case here.
Update: A reader e-mailed me to say “opportunity zones” have always been a part of Cain’s plan. Formerly, they were called “empowerment zones.”
Think of the bureaucracy needed to monitor, administer, decide who gets to be, decide what the criteria is for these “zones” whose purpose will be to encourage your job to move to places like Detroit.
insane.
......
The 999/909 plan should die, just on the idea of a new federal tax monstrosity alone.
......
If Cain says he’d sign a flat tax from Congress, then he’d be the perfect candidate.
He’s lost me. Everyone in this country should have a stake in the game, even if it’s only $10.00 a year.
Yes; caving to the pressure of losing the "poor" vote, he is tap-dancing. I recognize that low income makes it tough to survive, but, didn't he also say that "if you don't like being low income, look in the mirror"? (or words to that effect)
4th Generation Welfare recipients are NOT gonna vote anything but (D) anyway, and amending his ideas to patronize them by allowing them to afford themselves of existence and benefits of OTHERS is NOT a goo plan at all.
There is NO Conservative Candidate left in the race for the Republicans, for me.
So what happens when you start to earn a few dollars over the poverty level, do just those additional dollars get taxed, or do suddenly get a whammy of a tax on the whole thing?
And if you don’t get a whammy of a tax on the whole thing, does that mean the first poverty-level of income is exempt from the 9% for everyone?
In both cases, I do believe his impact analyses have to be changed to reflect this, no?
BAD Decision.
The poor need some “skin in the game.” They need to pay their fair share.
If Cain's plan morphed into something like that I would be all for it.
I always assumed there would be some sort of standard deduction per head on the income tax ...
He needs to dump the sales tax and the zones.
The poor pay sales taxes, property taxes (either directly or indirectly through higher rents), social security taxes, gas taxes, etc.
We are just as guilty as the left at playing with statistics. When it serves one argument to lump all taxes together we do that. When it serves another argument to focus on just one tax then we do that.
Bully for us.
Arguments we make so that our ideas sound so much better by pretending there is only one tax (the income tax):
1. The top 1% pay over 50% of the taxes
2. 50% of the people pay no tax at all
Arguments we make so that our ideas sound so much better by including all of the taxes we pay:
1. The average American works until June just to pay all of his taxes.
2. Please don't implement a new national sales taxes. We already pay too many taxes as it is.
I don't know about Cain's plan (even he might not know for sure what his plan is) but I would let everybody (even Warren Buffett) claim the poverty level as a tax deduction and then tax everything above that at a flat rate.
That would make the most sense, and would be easy to implement.
However the envious mob will cry out "Oh no, why does Warren Buffett need a deduction? We can't give that rich bastard a deduction."
The correct response would be that with or without the deduction he will pay almost the same amount, and if he wants to be nice he can choose to not take it if he feels like being a wee bit charitable.
Math man has added a 9. Do the math.
9,9-9,9
You just lost me, Herman. I ain’t voting to let bums off of the hook, as usual.
Beatles "Let it Be". "One After 909". Circa 1970 album./p>
Yep the first $20K is not taxed....always has been that way so why the surprise?
The poor pay sales taxes, property taxes (either directly or indirectly through higher rents), social security taxes, gas taxes, etc.
We are just as guilty as the left at playing with statistics. When it serves one argument to lump all taxes together we do that. When it serves another argument to focus on just one tax then we do that.
Bully for us.
Arguments we make so that our ideas sound so much better by pretending there is only one tax (the income tax):
1. The top 1% pay over 50% of the taxes
2. 50% of the people pay no tax at all
Arguments we make so that our ideas sound so much better by including all of the taxes we pay:
1. The average American works until June just to pay all of his taxes.
2. Please don't implement a new national sales taxes. We already pay too many taxes as it is.
The 'Reens did a killer cover version of that.
I’m on the Cain Train.
That’s a good question, and my solution to that would be this:
fix a “poverty level” dollar amount per person. All money earned in the household above the poverty level per person will be taxed at 9%.
So, if poverty level, for example, is set at $4,000 per person, a couple with 2 children would not be taxed on the first $16,000 they bring home.
9% tax on every dollar above that amount.
Goody gum drops. Either everyone pays an income tax or no one. No more exemptions or in short order we end up right back where we started.
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.