Can you prove that they would?
Can you prove that they would not?
Cain stated on Huckabee Saturday that Social Security would not count as income tax and there would be no tax on any savings plans including 401k’s.
As for the price of goods and services here you go.
Examples of How Taxes are Hidden in the Price of Goods
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has calculated several examples of how taxes affect the purchase price of several goods and services. The ATR figures include the impact of all taxes — not just certain hidden taxes — on prices. According to ATR:
• Taxes account for 35 cents of the cost of a $1.14 loaf of bread.
• 18 cents of a 50-cent can of soda go toward taxes.
• 72 percent of the cost of a 750-ml bottle of liquor goes toward taxes.
• Taxes for an $80 hotel room average 43 percent.
• Taxes account for $63.60 of a $159 airline ticket.
• A $153.09 monthly utility bill consists of $39.35 in taxes.
• Over half the cost of a $1.33 gallon of gasoline is due to taxes.22
A 1992 Cato Institute study looked at taxes somewhat differently, calculating how much someone needed to earn to have enough after-tax dollars to purchase several products. The study concluded that a typical worker needed to earn $17,038 to buy a $10,000 car, and $2,556 to purchase a $1,500 computer.
Now look at the cost of that $10,000 car with the 999 plan.
10,000 multiplied by .09 (Business tax)+.09 (Sales Tax)= 10,000 multiplied by .18= $11,800
$11,800 Cains 999 plan
$17,038 current plan
You tell me which one is better.
So a retiree would only pay for the 9% sales tax compared to the hidden 22% average they pay now.
From a 2007 Heritage analysis:
Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts;
Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts;
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets." Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. . . . If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work.
Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP. Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment).
Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. Claims that tax cuts benefit the economy by "putting money in people's pockets" represent the flip side of the pump-priming fallacy. Instead, the right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms, thereby encouraging more productive behavior.
Yet some propose demand-side tax cuts to "put money in people's pockets" and "get people to spend money." The 2001 tax rebates serve as an example: Washington borrowed billions from investors and then mailed that money to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, this simple transfer of existing wealth caused a temporary increase in consumer spending and a corresponding decrease in investment but led to no new economic growth. No new wealth was created because the tax rebate was unrelated to productive behavior. No one had to work, save, or invest more to receive a rebate. Simply redistributing existing wealth does not create new wealth.
In contrast, marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989.[15] More recently, the 2003 tax cuts helped to bring about strong economic growth for the past three years.