Posted on 10/08/2011 5:27:08 PM PDT by TLittlefella
It will significantly increase your taxes!
Here is a good example:
A retired couple collecting social security and supplementing their social security
with a $22,000 income working at Wal-Mart currently pays zero tax.
With the 999 plan they will pay $1980 (9% of the $2200). Then they will pay another 9%
national sales tax on food, clothing, gas, etc. Assuming they eat soup all week and dress
in rags they will undoubtedly spend at least $200 a week ($926 sales tax per year).
So the 999 plan will cost this retired couple $1980 + $926 = $2906 in taxes.
There are millions of Americans who would find themselves paying one hell of a lot
more taxes under the 999 plan.
How long would it be before the 9% National sales Tax becomes 10% - 11% etc.?
If you are 30 years old or younger it will be 25% by the time you retire.
Cain fails to provide significant details of his 999 plan:
Will social security income be taxed?
Will retirement income be taxed?
Gross income less charitable deductions – Goodbye mortgage interest deductions.
Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in
the zone. What the hell kind of deduction is this? Sounds to me like this undefined
deduction is some kind of ghetto deduction, another welfare type benefit for those
already sucking up food stamps and welfare checks?
I do hope in the next debate they quiz Herman for more details on his 999.
Does anybody know if the Tuesday debate will be televised? What channel?
Herman – a great man
With a terrible plan
Thomas Littlefella
.
There is a new thread posted on this subject.
Well, that's true--in theory. In practice, I just can't see it happening. Some rat congressman would introduce a bill that would exempt illegals from taxes, including sales tax. Then there'd be an exemption for anyone making less than $40,000 a year. Before long, the entire income tax system, with all its arcane amendments and exceptions, would be back, just as before.
We cannot continue with 40% or more of the population paying no income tax. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game. The only thing that really concerns me is how do we keep 9-9-9 from becoming 20-20-20?
No to all of the above
I agree and I think Cain knows this as well. So is this just more stump speech spin from a candidate, more hollow promises?
I guess you have never run a business. All it takes is one competitor to lower their prices in order to gain market share. The companies that don’t pass the savings on to their customers will find their sales dropping as they try to pocket their diminishing profits. Do you not compare prices when you shop?
You could also reduce the IRS with a flat 15% income tax for everyone, no exceptions/deductions/whatever.
I have to hand it to you Pauluistas; you are as good as Obama at class warfare! So, please explain to me why anyone should pay $0 income tax? That’s the problem now, isn’t it? Those poor old folks burned through their contributions to Social Security long ago and are now on the dole, the ponzi, the Louisiana Hay Ride or whatever other alias for welfare. Everybody who earns income should pay some income tax - everybody! Why should anybody get a free ride? I’m a retired Texas teacher and my wife’s a nurse. We have a modest income and I’m sick and tired of having to write a check to the IRS every year so geezers can snowbird in their Winnebagos while their children get tax exemptions for the geezers adult grandchildren who still live at home.
She also said, "Obviously we need to give money back to the government so that we can run the government." I doubt Bachmann's plan is to run the government on donations.
Oh, so you are OK with living on the dole. You pay no taxes on your SS income, right? The reason being you already paid taxes on the money. That’s the same argument I’d use to abolish the capital gains tax - the investor already paid tax on that money. But their capital gains tax is funding you! So, how is that fair? If you want to cut out the “special deals”, look in the mirror and admit that you enjoy one. As for the “do it gradually” argument, allow me to translate: “don’t mess with my welfare income stream; mess with somebody else’s”.
Where does 'fair' enter into it? If the Democrats say that they want to raise your taxes in order to be 'fair' would you cheerfully go along with it? So then why should the majority of the people who will see their taxes go up under the Cain plan go along with it because you think it's 'fair' that their taxes be doubled?
In short: good, bad or indifferent, 9-9-9 will NEVER happen.
In the end, though, if Cain lasts long enough on the campaign, 9-9-9 will likely become an albatross. These grand designs are just easy targets.
I understand the need to be competitive. What I disagree with is your claim that if business taxes go down then that will mean that their prices go down by the same amount. That makes zero sense at all. If I am a business and my costs go down but I can still sell as much of my goods as I did before then I'm in hog heaven. My bottom line just went up. That's the nature of the system. I'm not going to adjust my prices until I have to. And if my competitors are in the same boat as me, reaping the same windfall that I am, then neither will they.
Businesses in the same industry may or may not pay the same tax rate. It depends on too many variables. You don't see businesses paying lower rates automatically dropping prices to offset their lower tax liability. And nothing in the Cain plan will change that from what I can see. Business taxes go down. Profits go up. They may use the money to expand, pay down debt, buy back stock, hire more workers, any number of things - many of them positive. But if my taxes double under Cain's plan then the idea that my costs will halve to offset it is flat, freakin' ridiculous. Cain's plan is a net tax increase for most people.
Is that the best you can do? The people who actually pay (net) taxes right now are a minority of the population. So, I’m assuming that’s OK with you so long as you are on the “getting” end and not the “giving” end. Yes, a fair tax system would see everybody pay an equal percentage of their income in tax; there would be no double taxation of dividends or capital gains; corporate income tax would be abolished as well as property taxes on the local level. The 16th amendment would be repealed and a national sales tax put in place.
Which means that if you are correct then the 9-9-9 plan will raise the taxes of the majority of the people. So answer my question. If a candidate came out and said that he was going to double your taxes would you vote for him? Yes or no?
Elections are about winning. Winning usually requires the most votes. A candidate running on a platform of large tax cuts for most people is not going to win. Period. And that doesn't even get to the deficits his plan will run up or the threat his plans pose to those on Social Security. Put them all together and it's an Obama landslide. I'd really like to avoid that if we can.
You've just cut about $50 billion from the budget, based on 2010 budget figures. Under the 9-9-9 plan the first year deficit could be over $2 trillion. I'd say you have a long ways to go. Keep trying.
You are leaving out the reduction of business income tax from 35% to 9%. Businesses don’t pay it. It is passed on to customers. So it effectively is a sales tax. It is just hidden. The way Washington likes it.
Reduction of business taxes will make American built products cheaper for foreigners as well as Americans. American manufacturing will surge. So will jobs and pay.
So will Cain pass a law saying that the 26% reduction in the business tax must result in a 26% reduction in the price companies will charge? Otherwise how can you guarantee that the consumer will see the benefits of the tax reduction?
Case in point. Two years ago, the company I work for implemented an across the board wage cut of from 5% to 15% depending on your job category. The company did not cut the prices it charged to its customers because of that. Those prices remained the same. Those reductions in expenses went to the corporate bottom line - which was already in the black, by the way, just not enough in the black to satisfy management. So why should anyone believe that reducing corporate taxes will be any different? Like any other reduction in expenses, why wouldn't the company keep the money and use it for it's own purposes? Maybe it'll use it to expand or hire, which are good things. Maybe it will use the money to increase profits and stock prices. Maybe it will pay down debt or purchase its own stock. But why should it use the windfall to cut prices? Claiming that businesses will automatically do that means that you believe there is a certain level of profits that corporations are entitled to, and anything over that point should be returned to the customer in the form of lower prices. I defy you to find corporate CEOs who would agree with that.
OK, then, we’re doomed because we have reached the point where the “takers” outnumber the “makers”? So, just what do you propose? Let’s nominate candidates who promise to “take more from the makers and give it the takers”.
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.