Posted on 10/17/2011 11:08:56 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
Do you know why candidates for office tend to be reluctant to propose detailed plans? Because they know the plans will be flyspecked and picked apart by just about everyone. Inviting criticism doesn’t help you to get votes.
But fear of criticism prevents you from conceiving solutions to problems. So even if avoidance of criticism helps in propelling you to an election victory, how are you supposed to effectively govern? How are you supposed to fix the problems you told everyone you were going to fix? That’s why I’m happy to see so much criticism of the 9-9-9 plan I’ve proposed. It shows that people are thinking seriously about a substantive idea. When people stop obsessing over “gaffes” and campaign strategy, and start honing in on fixing the country’s economic problems, we are getting somewhere. This is not to say, of course, I’m going to leave poorly founded criticisms of the plan unanswered. Certain objections to the plan are circulating in the usual places, driven by the same kind of thinking that has left us with a stagnant economy, $14 trillion in debt and mounting entitlement obligations. These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:
Claim 1: The 9 percent sales tax, which is one third of the formula, is regressive and hurts the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes now. Response: This claim ignores some important aspects of the plan. One is that we eliminate the 15 percent payroll tax, which allows for no deductions at all – not even for charitable contributions. Some critics have argued that the poor still come out behind because employers pay much of the payroll tax. That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about how compensation works in the business world. An employer decides to accept a certain cost-of-employment for each employee, and the employer’s share of the payroll tax is part of that cost. It comes out of your compensation whether you realize it or not. Also, a flat tax is not – by definition – a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same rate. And it is not an added tax, but a replacement tax, whose total burden is determined by the consumer’s spending decisions. Finally, the best way to help the poor is by spurring economic growth, which the current tax code will never do, and which the 9-9-9 plan is specifically designed to do.
Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them. Even if we repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminated the income tax, as some demand in return for establishing a consumption tax, politicians could raise that rate too. What’s far more important here is the fact that the very simple, flat-rate structure of the 9-9-9 plan, which allows no deductions, loopholes or exemptions (with the exception of charitable contributions for the income tax), is a far more growth-friendly tax structure than the mangled mess of rates, taxes, exemptions and ill-conceived incentives we have today. It virtually eliminates the massive compliance costs of the current tax code, and it restrains the size of government. By taking away the politicians’ gateway drug of loopholes and deductions, we make it much more difficult for them to mess with the tax code. Having said that, any plan could be criticized for what it would look like if someone messed it up. The plan as I’m proposing it is a huge improvement over the status quo.
Claim 3: The plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Response: It does no such thing. It is fair and neutral, taxing everything once and nothing twice. What’s more, we are getting ready to propose empowerment zones for economically struggling areas in which the rates will be even lower. That will allow the poor to benefit even more from the plan than they already would.
Claim 4: The plan should have included a pre-bate to offset the sales tax. Response: The last thing we need is to establish another federal entitlement, which the proposed pre-bate would quickly become. And it’s not necessary. The consumption tax replaces ones already embedded in prices. It’s not the prices that would increase, but the visibility of the taxes being paid. Right now, money is deducted from your paycheck and you never see it, so it doesn’t feel like you paid a tax. But you did. With the 9-9-9 plan, you feel it, and I suspect a good many people who clamor for higher taxes will start to feel differently as a result. But they won’t be paying more than before. They’ll just be more aware of it.
Claim 5: The business tax represents a new tax on labor. Response: Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes this claim because we do not allow businesses to deduct the cost of labor from their taxable revenue. But the claim is bogus for several reasons. First, we are reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 9 percent, so the tradeoff is a much lower rate paid on more of a company’s income. Second, we treat capital and labor the same, both with the corporate tax and with the income tax. That is fair and neutral. What’s more, the current system taxes both capital investment by business and capital gains by individuals. That’s a double tax, and the 9-9-9 plan eliminates it.
Claim 6: The numbers don’t add up. The 9-9-9 tax wouldn’t generate enough revenue. Response: Several groups apparently “ran the numbers” and came to this conclusion, including Bloomberg News and the Center for American Progress. Our report, which they do not appear to have read, demonstrates that it generates the same revenue as the current tax code, and our methodology is visible for anyone to see. Those who are making this claim should release their scoring so their methodology is as visible as ours.
Claim 7: The 9-9-9 plan is a really an 18 percent value-added tax plus a 9 percent income tax. Response: That’s an argument? That some might be able to give it a disagreeable label? What we have done is split the incidence of the tax so it is harder to evade – since you’d have to dodge two taxes, not just one, to save the 18 percent. And by eliminating loopholes we’ve made that virtually impossible to do anyway. I don’t really care what people call it. What matters is how it works.
Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two. More to the point, though, everyone has the same opportunity to work hard, earn capital and put that capital at risk. Whatever I have earned has come from hard work, good decisions (and some bad ones), a willingness to take risks and a constant honing of strategy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing. I realize many are being told there are no opportunities available to them, but that is not true and I wish people – for their own sakes – would stop listening to such doom and gloom and come to understand all the opportunity that truly exists, and learn how to access it.
Claim 9: It won’t pass. Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work. One of the worst instincts of Washington types is to judge an idea not on its substantive merits, but on their perception of its political viability. I do not underestimate the challenge of getting any good idea through Congress, but I have said all along that if you propose a good idea, and the people understand the idea, they will pressure Congress to pass it. So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?
>> “Palin and Perry endorsed TARP also” <<
.
Weak argument, in Palin’s case anyway, since she had to hew to the McCain position in her interviews. Perry will not be an issue in this election.
Cain’s plan doesn’t reduce the total taxes paid. So it can’t “reduce prices of goods” due to lower taxes.
I’ve looked at a lot of corporate annual reports the past few days, and I have yet to find a corporation that paid 22% of their sales in taxes. They pay a fraction of that. They pay at worst 35% of their PROFIT in taxes, but their profits are just a small portion of their sales.
If a company has $1 million in sales, and makes $100,000, they pay $35,000 in tax. Under Cain, they only pay $9000, so they save $26,000. The products drop in price by $26,000/$1,000,000, or about 2.6%. But the entire $1 million is now taxed at 9%, or an extra $90,000 in tax. So the cost at purchase increases.
In many cases, the company itself will save money because the materials IT buys will also drop slightly in price. But the 35% corporate tax includes hundreds of deductions, credits, and depreciation schedules which essentially put lots of the costs of business off the tax roles. Cain eliminates all of those. He even taxes the money paid to employees, and notes that this lowers the tax rate while broadening the amount of revenue that is taxed.
People posting these “comparisons” completely ignore the elimination of deductions, both at the corporate and individual income tax level. Individuals lose their child tax credits, their dependent deductions, their marriage penalty deductions, their mortgage interest deductions, their state sales tax deductions, their medical payment deductions. My taxable income would increase by over 20% under Cain’s plan. Then I’ll get lower tax rates, so it will work out ok, but it’s false to claim my marginal tax rate goes from 35% to 9%, because I’ll be taxed on an extra 20% of my income.
If he doesn’t keep deductions for 401K and IRA, that puts even MORE money on the table for current taxation.
That is only slightly less onerous than government talking about taxing my 401K.
>> “This is why I have advised conservatives not to run against “Obama,” but to direct their attacks against “Democrat policies,” linking them directly to socialism.” <<
.
Excellent strategy. Politics of personality are fickle at best. Issues, issues, issues.
>> “HOWEVER, because NYC/NY has almost 9% in sales tax, adding another 9% in sales tax almost wipes out whatever gain I have until I get past / make more than my basic costs of living.” <<
.
Very predictable. - This was the reason for the massive death of small businesses in Europe. When they ran the numbers, they were working for nothing, and went on the dole.
Forget Congress. Cain’s “plan” is to have the current deficit reduction “supercommittee” to “pass the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan along with their spending cut package”
One can hope he understands that the “supercommittee” doesn’t “pass” anything, it just makes a recommendation.
But who knows, because he already seems to be under the misguided notion that they are going to pass a spending cut package, AND that while doing that legislatively obligated duty, they would be happy to throw in some extraneous new tax proposal that nobody has vetted, and that hasn’t been through the legislative process.
Which means maybe he doesn’t know that whatever the supercommittee puts out, congress has to, by law, simply vote yes or no, without amendments.
Or since Cain is used to having dictatorial powers, maybe he thinks it would be good to make a fundamental change to our tax code without ANY oversite, congressional committee work or hearings, or debate on the details in congress.
Because that is what he has proposed — that a supercommittee take on a non-legislatively-authorized task that does NOTHING to meet their goal (deficit reduction: Cain’s plan is revenue neutral under scoring), that would then obligate congress to pass his 9-9-9 plan without a single amendment or a minute of debate on the merits.
Of course, that would make his job easier. And it’s what a good corporate executive would do — just tell his subordinates what to do, and expect it to happen. But that’s not what we do in a representative democracy. We don’t have a king.
Remember how we mocked Obama when he said the supercommittee should be tasked by congress with finding another $500 billion to pay for his jobs bill? Well at least Obama saw the need for congress to actually AUTHORIZE the supercommittee to take on additional tasks.
Really. Since most people have probably never played Sim City, I guess he is right. So how does it work in the game?
>> “He misses the point, either deliberately because he can’t answer it, or because he doesn’t understand the point, which I doubt.
“The problem is that people who have SAVED money did so under the old income/payroll tax rates. When you spend money you previously saved, you will now get hit with a new 9% tax that you didn’t before, but you don’t get any of the “savings” from the 9% income tax. You DO get savings from the drop in corporate tax rates, but it’s not enough to offset the 9% sales tax.” <<
.
Excellent analysis.
Cain needs to lose this albatross quickly, or it will kill his candidacy. None of his answers will fool anyone that really understands the accounting.
THe money will go somewhere. IF the company doesn’t increase their pay to the employee, the company will have the money to re-invest and grow. Or they will pay it out as dividends to their shareholders.
Perry has already governed with sound conservative principles for a decade as Governor. That’s not just My opinion, Sarah Palin said so as well.
What has Cain done to implement his conservative principles? The problem with picking a non-politician is we have no idea how they will actually govern. We’ve seen solid conservative talkers turn out to support rather non-conservative things.
For example, have you noticed people souring on Allen West? He was the conservative, tea-party darling, but then he voted for the supercommittee “deficit reduction” plan.
Resellers have resale licenses.
That is what the big card at the register is for at Costco.
His plan was to get the 12-member “supercommittee” to pass it for him, while they were on a break from finding their 1.5 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases.
You joined FR in early October and have a lot of replies against Cain?
Are you getting paid for each anti Cain reply you post?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:rconser/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
One more question as a “true conservative” have you donated to Free Republic or are you like the illegals slurping up the what you haven’t paid for?
CAIN IS ABLE
I agree. I see this country is near civil war within the year. This is do or die for the world wide Communist Party who is behind all of these riots. The kids in NYC are morons being led by professional radicals , they don’t even know that much .
I see serious problems ahead and soon.
I agree. I see this country will be near civil war within the year. This is do or die for the world wide Communist Party who is behind all of these riots. The kids in NYC are morons being led by professional radicals , they don’t even know that much .
I see serious problems ahead and soon.
I agree. I see this country will be near civil war within the year. This is do or die for the world wide Communist Party who is behind all of these riots. The kids in NYC are morons being led by professional radicals , they don’t even know that much .
I see serious problems ahead and soon.
Then let’s put it back. Obama did a lot of bad things, and we should reverse them, not double-down on the “don’t waste a crisis” mentality and propose a whole new way to disrupt the economy.
Cain is essentially promising everybody lower taxes, while proposing a plan that is “revenue neutral”, meaning it doesn’t cut taxes. Obviously everybody can’t get a tax cut. But that’s what everybody keeps saying, that THEY get a tax cut. When they figure out they don’t people won’t like the plan as much.
YIKES , sorry for triple post..ISP problems , damn Comcast.
I want my daughter that recently graduated from college to be able to find a job. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. The economy is not going to turn around if Obama wins reelection next year.
How nice. It doesn't matter if your proposal works, if you can't pass it.
I don't see an answer to the question: Is Social Security taxed?, either.
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.