Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

[Ladewig]

Looking up Cain's 9-9-9 plan, I see that it is a flat 9% personal income tax, a 9% flat corporate tax and a 9% national sales tax; in all of these, no exceptions, no deductions.

Right off the bat, I can see some problems. For example, there's the problem of the really poor. If someone makes only $10,000.00 per year, can they afford to pay a $900.00 federal income tax? Probably not. So, there would have to be exemptions for those at the poverty level.

I am not supporting Cain in any way. I just want to point out that there is a deduction for those living or working in an Empowerment Zone. There currently are a few dozen which have been defined by congress: Detroit, Kentucky highlands, Camden, Jacksonville, etc. Given that Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio are also on the list, I imagine that that adds up to a measurable percentage of the U.S. workforce. Plus Cain's deduction gives this unspecified amount to people who live and/or work in these places so the number of people paying less than 9% is even greater.

The Fair Tax people are proposing a sales tax only on new goods and services sold to an end user or customer. (Business to business sales are not counted). Someone making $10,000 per annum could avoid a lot of sales tax by buying used clothes and appliances. Unfortunately, the Fair Tax website explains that neither food nor medicine will be exempt. Yikes!

 

[Drachasor]

Wrong. Took about 30 seconds to think that out.

Yes, I've looked over it.

Capital gains: Less tax.
Individual and Corporations: Less Tax for most, especially from where most the revenue comes from.
A sales Tax of 9% won't make up the difference, will decrease consumer spending (again, basic economics), and is generally bad for the economy.

Add to the above that he wants additional wavers to lower tax revenue further.

Note, he plans on eventually ONLY having the Sales Tax.

So how do you think that's going to raise enough revenue? I mean, without dropping Social Security, Medicare, etc, etc. Admittedly, he seems to want to do that, but he doesn't give specifics.

 

[leftysergeant]

Someone making $10,000 per annum could avoid a lot of sales tax by buying used clothes and appliances.

Maybe this is to tie in withpizza boy's idea that the poor are poor by choice. "Unless you are middle class, you are not entitled to nice things so get off your ass and get a better job."

Unfortunately, the Fair Tax website explains that neither food nor medicine will be exempt. Yikes!

The bleeding drongo wants to tax you just for being alive, so that he doesn't have to tax the parasites using up the water and polluting the air and burdening our regulatory agencies.

And that fool expects us to respect him as a Christian. What a sicko.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, I've looked over it.

Capital gains: Less tax.
Individual and Corporations: Less Tax for most, especially from where most the revenue comes from.
A sales Tax of 9% won't make up the difference, will decrease consumer spending (again, basic economics), and is generally bad for the economy.

Add to the above that he wants additional wavers to lower tax revenue further.

Note, he plans on eventually ONLY having the Sales Tax.

So how do you think that's going to raise enough revenue? I mean, without dropping Social Security, Medicare, etc, etc. Admittedly, he seems to want to do that, but he doesn't give specifics.

So you can't support your claim except with vague assertions?

Oh, and that issue of "raising enough revenue"? I think what's fair is to ask if this tax could generate roughly the same revenue as the Federal Gov. gets currently - not the total outlays, which far exceed revenue.

You could at that point consider the tremendous cost savings of his proposal - in the virtual elimination of the IRS, as well as the elimination of entire industries in the private sector which are concerned with tax form preparation.

This is not unlike what Russia did in 1992. For them, revenue went up, and the public viewed it extremely favorably.

 

[Chaos]

You could at that point consider the tremendous cost savings of his proposal - in the virtual elimination of the IRS, as well as the elimination of entire industries in the private sector which are concerned with tax form preparation.

... thus causing unemployment to skyrocket.

This is not unlike what Russia did in 1992. For them, revenue went up, and the public viewed it extremely favorably.

Revenue went up because Yeltsin sold government property to his pals and backers at bargain prices. And look what that did for Russia in the years after 1992...

 

[mhaze]

... thus causing unemployment to skyrocket.



Revenue went up because Yeltsin sold government property to his pals and backers at bargain prices. And look what that did for Russia in the years after 1992...

IF you consider eliminating the 6.6 billion hours that Americans spend filling out tax forms - 1.6 billion on the 1040 alone, as a "good thing", then yes, unemployment would skyrocket. If 1B of the 1040 work was paid professionals, that would be 500, 000 tax professionals whom would not be needed in the economy any longer.

That's a good change, not a bad one. You know, once upon a time women stayed in the home because, among other things, one important job they had to do was bake bread. Someone figured out that bakeries (factories) could do that more efficiently. Everyone benefited when those women were capable of either entering the work force, or when they were able to spend more time on raising kids. By your logic, they should still be baking bread.

Oh, and for Russia? You've gone off on a tangent, we are discussing TAX POLICY. Look up their 1992 changes, they are quite similar to this.

And they were considered very positive for the people and their economy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Oh, and for Russia? You've gone off on a tangent, we are discussing TAX POLICY. Look up their 1992 changes, they are quite similar to this.

And they were considered very positive for the people and their economy.

Too soon to tell. Wait till they find out what they have to give up when the temproary infusion of cash runs out.

 

[Drachasor]

So you can't support your claim except with vague assertions?

You're joking, right? It's basic math.

Let's say someone has no home and only buys goods. They spend ALL of their money every year, except the amount needed for income tax. In the 999 plan, that results in an 18% tax rate (9% income plus 9% sales).

If you make 34.5k+ a year, then your current income tax is 25%. Must I provide you with data showing people making less than that do not provide a significant amount of the federal tax revenue? I will if you are not aware of this fact.

Of course, the above IS an absurd scenario. Those people will have homes, buy services, and do other things that aren't subject to the Sales Tax (such as saving some money). So the revenue is less than my "ideal" model would indicate.

Capital Gains tax is current 15%, so 9% is a lot less.

Again, basic math.

You could at that point consider the tremendous cost savings of his proposal - in the virtual elimination of the IRS, as well as the elimination of entire industries in the private sector which are concerned with tax form preparation.

The IRS does not require a significant amount of funding.

 

[MaGZ]

The passive wording of your post reminds me of the title of the book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The book is about the evasion of responsibility vs. accepting responsibility for one's errors. The authors note that it is common for government agencies, when admitting they blew it, to say, "Mistakes were made . . . ," rather than "We made a mistake," or, "We really screwed up." Saying, "Mistakes were made," implies that those admitting to the error didn't actually commit it. The error just sort of happened by itself.

When you say, "It has been alleged . . . ," you make the allegation into an abstract source, without attributing the allegation to a given party whose credentials we can examine. So, "it has been alleged," by whom? The American Nazi Party? A respected historian? The FBI?

Dr. Herman Homer Gustav Maerz

 

[Ladewig]

Capital Gains tax is current 15%, so 9% is a lot less.

Correction: capital gains drops to zero in Phase I of 999 Plan.

 

[Tricky]

It doesn't take sophisticated math to see the problem here. The 9-9-9 would not be popular among Republicans if it raised taxes on anybody, but Herman Cain thinks it will replace the income tax? That is simply ludicrous. Either this is simply shifting the tax burden (and if so, tell us who is going to pay more) or he's going to reduce the amount of money that the federal government takes in. That sounds all well and good (to idiots) but if he's going to reduce Federal revenues, then he's going to have to make very severe cuts.

Where are the cuts going to be, Herman? If you know anything about business, you know about debits and credits. You're telling us about the credits, but you're carefully ignoring the debits.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Dr. Herman Homer Gustav Maerz

Thanks, MaGZ. Whenever I've nearly forgotten about some creepy anti-Semite, you're always available to dredge them up from their rightful residences - the sewers of humanity.

Maerz - the guy found Jewish Ritualistic Murder in everything he ever looked into. Must be a real hero to "the movement". He did prison time for his beliefs just like the guy with the moustache (and much the same beliefs).

 

[Newtons Bit]

If you make 34.5k+ a year, then your current income tax is 25%. Must I provide you with data showing people making less than that do not provide a significant amount of the federal tax revenue? I will if you are not aware of this fact.

Not quite. The marginal tax rate for money earned above $34,500/year is 25%. However if you make exactly $34,500/year then your effective tax rate is 13.8% of all income. People making $34,500/year could end up paying more in taxes under Cain's plan than under the current system.

 

[The Mutha]

9% Federal sales tax on top of the various state and local taxes... Around here that would a total of 17.025%. I don't see that flying very well. All the Tea Party "we don't want to pay ANY taxes" folk would be extremely up in arms.

 

[Ladewig]

The 9-9-9 would not be popular among Republicans if it raised taxes on anybody, .

Not to be a jerk about it, but I'm going to need to see some evidence for that claim. If, like Cain, one believes poverty is a choice, then having the lowest ten percent of U.S. wage earners pay more (and the highest U.S. wage earners pay less) is equitable in one's eyes. After all, Cain likely reasons, these slackers use more government services.

 

[Ladewig]

9% Federal sales tax on top of the various state and local taxes... Around here that would a total of 17.025%. I don't see that flying very well. All the Tea Party "we don't want to pay ANY taxes" folk would be extremely up in arms.

Indeed. Plus the sales tax will increase in Phase II. Folks are going to start calling themselves businesses so that they can be exempt from federal taxes (or charities so they can be exempted from local, state and federal taxes). It may be too soon to talk about dismantling the IRS, we going to need a lot of field agents to check up on "businesses."

 

[mhaze]

9% Federal sales tax on top of the various state and local taxes... Around here that would a total of 17.025%. I don't see that flying very well. All the Tea Party "we don't want to pay ANY taxes" folk would be extremely up in arms.

Really?

 

[mhaze]

....having the lowest ten percent of U.S. wage earners pay more (and the highest U.S. wage earners pay less) is equitable in one's eyes. After all, Cain likely reasons, these slackers use more government services.

The point here is subtle.

Is it right that about half of the population should get a free ride, and pay no taxes?

No.

Then how do you fix that?

 

[Ladewig]

The point here is subtle.

Is it right that about half of the population should get a free ride, and pay no taxes?

No.

Then how do you fix that?

I wasn't trying to argue whether or not raising taxes on the lowest wage earners was fair or not. I was just trying to point out that it is wrong to say "The 9-9-9 would not be popular among Republicans if it raised taxes on anybody, . "

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

True but it's up to the president to fix the system. He's failed.

So, basically, your criticism of Obama is that... he sucks as a dictator.