Posted on 10/11/2011 8:18:29 PM PDT by Fred
There was one clear winner from Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, based on the simple metrics of name recognition: businessman Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan."
Virtually all the candidates at the debate table had something to say about Cain's plan to replace the tax code with three, flat nine-percent federal taxes on consumption, business and income. Cain, once delegated to the remote wings of the debate stage, has enjoyed a surge in the polls ever since he won the straw poll in Orlando, Fla., last month, and at the first debate since he joined former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the top tier, Cain and his policy proposals took up more of the debate's time than the ideas floated by any other candidate.
Of course, this isn't to say that any of them praised Cain's idea. Far from it. In fact, everyone who had an opportunity took shots at the plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The 9-9-9 plan does nothing more than create a national sales tax. It does not eliminate the income tax, and we will all be paying 20-20-20 before it is done. He should be ashamed to introduce such a thing in the GOP.
The 999 plan includes a provision requiring a 2/3 vote in congress to raise taxes. Therefore your suggestion it would become a 20-20-20 is not based an the practical provisions of the plan.
So you are saying that if Cain is elected, he will be a push over and compromise to the point of 20-20-20 ..... aren’t all the candidates at risk of the same except they don’t have a plan?
Why doesn’t someone ask him, if he can’t get 9-9-9, how much would he move from it, or is this the grand compromise already and he isn’t going to move from this?
Too early to dismiss this, Cain has a lot more questions to answer, but I think you are basing your dismission of Cain on a lot of assumptions.
The 2/3 provision would require nothing more than 50% plus one to override in Congress. And you had better believe that eventually there will be RATS in Congress who will vote to override it and raise Herman Cain’s national sales tax in a heart beat. Cain knows this, too. You cannot trust that man as far as you can throw him.
What was the other candidate’s economic plans? I didn’t catch it.
Your lack of knowledge of historical precedent is frightening.
If elected President, Cain would take at least two years to get his 9-9-9 plan enacted. Then, after two or six more years, someone would come along and raise his daggone sales tax. That is what you will get with Herman Cain.
Among the “other candidate’s” plans were: Drill Baby Drill (Perry), less government regulation and repeal Obamacare (Bachmann).
So, the American people will overwhelmingly vote to increase their own taxes to 20% on income and purchases? I seriously doubt that.
The justification for the rate staying low is that a rate increase would impact all and would receive much more scrutiny.
Getting a flat tax or fair tax would be the two best possible things that could happen to us. I am more flat tax than fair, but I see the benefits of either vs. the current mess. The presentation of a hybrid is not my preference, but it is the first serious proposal to get rid of the current mess since Forbes’ flat tax proposal 10 years ago.
From the article: Cain's plan to replace the tax code...
RTFA
However, he is forcing the other candidates into an uncomfortable position. By attacking his plan they are defending the 35-35-0 tax scheme. I don't think all that many Republican primary voters have much faith that some politician will make a few tweeks and magically fix ten thousand pages of crony tax code.
It's been fun watching FReepers defend the progressive tax code, massive loopholes and redistribution policies. Like somehow the same congress that would give us a 20% sales tax wouldn't just as easily jack the income tax back up to 90%. At least the welfare parasites would have to pay the sales tax.
You can’t be this naive. Even a third grader knows congress can change the laws anytime. Only constitutional amendment would guarantee 2/3 requirement
You can’t be this naive. Even a third grader knows congress can change the laws anytime. Only constitutional amendment would guarantee 2/3 requirement
You can’t be this naive. Even a third grader knows congress can change the laws anytime. Only constitutional amendment would guarantee 2/3 requirement
It would mean the Dems would have to have a 2/3rds majority in both houses. Cain has said he wouldn’t sign the bill unless this provision was included. So you can remain ignorant and by default support the current system and its IRS bureaucracy or you can get on board a change that would REDUCE the size of the Federal Government. Cain’s ultimate goal is the elimination of the IRS and all production taxes to be replaced by the Fair Tax (tax on consumption). If you knew your history you would know that before the Income Tax, the US funded itself on consumption taxes and tarrifs. The IRS and its Income tax is Marxist/Progressive, a heavily graduated tax on Production is at the heart of Marxism/Progressivism. I don’t see how anyone who considers themselves a Conservative could be in favor of keeping the current system.
Visit www.fairtax.org
You can’t be this naive. Even a third grader knows congress can change the laws anytime. Only constitutional amendment would guarantee 2/3 requirement
My family will pay a lot more in taxes and that we can’t afford. This plan would also end tax deductions for home, health etc.
Set the income tax rate at 9% and add a 9% national sales tax is something the Congress can do. And later it can raise both rates, which it will do. If you do not know that, you know nothing about the politicians in Washington, DC.
I’m sick of “9-9-9.” You can tell Cain knows marketing and that repeating a slogan ad infinitum will sell millions of pizzas.
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.