Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nein! Nein! Nein! The wild world of Cainonomics
National Review Online ^ | September 29, 2011 | Kevin D. Williamson

Posted on 09/29/2011 3:59:45 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 proposal — a 9 percent personal-income tax, a 9 percent corporate-income tax, and a 9 percent federal sales tax, to replace all current federal taxes — is attractive in many ways. It is not a flat tax, but it is a flattish tax; it eliminates some (but by no means all) of the divide-and-conquer features of the federal tax code; it simplifies taxes for most households and many businesses; it might reduce compliance costs. All to the good.

A few things should be understood about the 9-9-9 plan. The first is that 9-9-9 is not Herman Cain’s real fiscal plan. He proposes 9-9-9 as an intermediate step en route to his preferred solution, the so-called Fair Tax, about which I have some serious reservations, along the lines of those spelled out by Ramesh Ponnuru here. In fact, Mr. Cain proposes an unwieldy and unnecessarily complex multistep program on the way to the Fair Tax, 9-9-9 being Phase 1, Part 2 (“Phase 1 Enhanced,” in his words). Getting Phase 1, Part 1 would be difficult enough, and the program is marked by Mr. Cain’s most distressing hallmark: wishful thinking that borders on fantasy. How is he going to get to Phase 2, the Fair Tax, a radical restructuring of U.S. public finances that invites not only fiscal questions but constitutional ones as well? “Amidst a backdrop of the economic boom created by the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan,” Mr. Cain writes, “I will begin the process of educating the American people on the benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.” May I propose a Williamson’s Rule of Politics? Here it is: “Any plan that includes the words ‘educating the American people’ will fail.” Mr. Cain’s proposals are always bolstered by that economic boom he sees just around the corner, but he never is able to answer the question: What if the boom fails to show up on schedule? What then? And that is one important reason Herman Cain should not be the Republican nominee. (Based on my single encounter with Mr. Cain, at a meeting with National Review’s editors, I would have hesitated to hire him to run a pizza company, much less the country.)

But let’s take a look at 9-9-9 on its own merits. Mr. Cain says the proposal would be revenue-neutral. I have my doubts. The federal government took in about $2.2 trillion last year. Based on personal-income and business-income figures from the IRS, and consumer-spending figures from the Gallup survey, my English-major math suggests that a 9 percent tax on all of the above produces about $1.7 trillion in revenue, meaning that 2010’s $1.7 trillion deficit would have been more like a $2.2 trillion deficit — from calamity to catastrophe. If Mr. Cain’s team is building in some growth assumptions into the fiscal forecasts, they must be sunny indeed.

In any event, Mr. Cain has not spelled out in any detail a spending proposal that would allow the federal government to get by on $2.2 trillion, much less on $1.7 trillion. If the Tea Party stands for anything, it stands for smaller government, meaning lower spending. And yet the allure of magical thinking on taxes is so powerful that the tea-party favorite has given a great deal more detail about his tax proposals, with actual figures and everything, than he has about his spending proposals, which remain remarkably vague: Spending must be “reviewed with a keen eye and a red pen,” he says. Well, gee willikers, why didn’t I think of that. (Other than his pie-in-the-sky growth assumptions, my least favorite thing about Herman Cain is that his response to every challenge is to appoint a committee of smart guys to do the right thing. He seems incapable of appreciating the fact that moral failing is not the only reason Washington fails to do the right thing.) As I have argued before, the real danger of tax-cuts-and-growth utopianism is that it draws attention away from spending cuts, which is where the real action is needed. Mr. Cain is nibbling at that bait.

The 9-9-9 proposal also creates some perverse incentives. With business income taxed at 9.0 percent while dividends and capital gains are taxed at 0.0 percent, there is an excellent reason to pay out something approaching 100 percent of business income as dividends, or to hide it by “reinvesting” it in the business. I like dividends and am sympathetic to the case for giving them preferential tax treatment — a company that concentrates on paying a high dividend rather than on raising its share price probably is a better-behaved company, in most cases — but it is always and everywhere true that if government creates a tax shelter it will be exploited to maximum effect.

What about that national sales tax? Though I remain hesitant about imposing a federal sales tax, on both Burkean and prudential grounds, Andrew Stuttaford and others have argued persuasively that income shouldn’t carry the entire tax burden, and that consumption has to carry a piece, too. I can live with that. But Fair Tax enthusiasts ought to be ready to deal with the emergence of a very large black market in untaxed consumer goods — a 30 percent sales tax will ensure that. You may get to abolish the IRS, but the sales-tax enforcers might prove just as expensive and intrusive.

Which is to say: There is no easy way out of this mess. Cain’s 9-9-9 program and the Fair Tax might very well constitute improvements on the status quo, but neither is a substitute for comprehensive entitlement reform and deep cuts in discretionary spending, the sine qua non of serious fiscal-reform efforts.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: economy; hermancain; incometax; nationalsalestax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: aruanan
That's not a new tax. That's just making everyone pay some portion of the same tax.

tomatoe potatoe - with apologies to Dan Quayle. Tax on folks where there was no tax before. If you support that, we have no argument.

41 posted on 09/29/2011 4:50:23 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wita; Hugin; All

Many costs passed to us come in the form of EPA regulations and lawsuit costs that businesses must comply with and continually fight (including going on bended knee and hat in hand — with a campaign donation — to Capital Hill). To me, these are hidden taxes.

Government must be CUT DOWN and their influence that has worked it’s way into every aspect of our lives, needs to be stopped, blocked and rolled back.

A major shift in our current paradigm must occur and it will take a long time for this to occur.

Turn out in the 2012 election will be paramount. Democratic Party elected officials, at all levels, must be defeated and replaced with conservatives for this process to begin.

For capitalism to survive, the GOP must bring in every voter who agrees that our country is broken, that it has been beaten down and that we need to return to the basics (get rid of these mulit-thousand page bills and codes and rules with untold numbers of ways lawyers and accountants can interpret them).

As we all know, numbers don’t lie, but liars can figure.


42 posted on 09/29/2011 4:58:46 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Cain's tax plan is idiotic nonsense. It's gimmickry. It's just what you'd expect from a fast-food guy. It should come with a side of garlic bread.

But worse, bringing the idea of a national sales tax into the conversation is dangerous and should be stopped. In short, Cain needs to shut the hell up about it. But of course he won't. Here's hoping his 15 minutes are up quickly.

43 posted on 09/29/2011 5:18:17 AM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
"a 9 percent personal-income tax, a 9 percent corporate-income tax, and a 9 percent federal sales tax, to replace all current federal taxes"
44 posted on 09/29/2011 5:20:41 AM PDT by RPTMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
...my English-major math suggests that a 9 percent tax on all of the above produces about $1.7 trillion in revenue, meaning that 2010’s $1.7 trillion deficit would have been more like a $2.2 trillion deficit...

Yo, Kevin, your libtard education doesn't recognize that lower taxes result in higher revenue. It's probably because libtards are trying to make the public think the words "taxes" and "revenue" mean the same thng.

45 posted on 09/29/2011 5:27:30 AM PDT by CPOSharky (The only thing straight, white, Christian males get is the blame for everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I would vote for Cain, but I wish he’d get off this 999 trick. It may have good properties, but there are too many unknowns, leaving Cain exposed to the Dems attack. They’ll will have a field day scaring the electorate. We need to focus the electorate on Obama’s record.


46 posted on 09/29/2011 5:39:16 AM PDT by Tim n Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

You got it! Rush has been making that point ever since he’s been on the air.


47 posted on 09/29/2011 5:41:33 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now! Bam is "Debt Man Walking" in 2012 - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Cain said that if 10% is good enough for God, then 9% should be good enough for the government. Well, 9% X 3 = 27%. Better he proposed a 3-3-3 scheme: 3% income tax on all income, 3% Social Security tax, and 3% capital gains tax. For those who'd say that it wouldn't provide enough revenue for the federal government, tell them, just wait for a few years. Oh, another part of the tax scheme should be that revenue in excess of expenses pays off the national debt. After that, revenues in excess of expenses are returned to the taxpayers in proportion to their taxes paid.
48 posted on 09/29/2011 5:42:02 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
For those who'd say that it wouldn't provide enough revenue for the federal government, tell them, just wait for a few years.

I'd rather see your revenue figures now rather than wait and see a few years from now. If Cain's 9-9-9 plan will not even come close to covering current federal spending, how will the 3-3-3 plan do so?

49 posted on 09/29/2011 5:45:09 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

That was a chief component of the Fair Tax - it had a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th amendment, in effect, making income taxes unconstitutional,

whose ratification was a pre-requisite for implementing the NRST.


50 posted on 09/29/2011 5:49:47 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: riri

If the NRST was a VAT, then you’d be making sense.


51 posted on 09/29/2011 5:53:21 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
I think PG is right on the principle here. America is at a tipping point where the have and the have-nots are vying for control of the treasury. We are precariously close to losing this balance as evidenced by the last presidential elections. Al Gore won the popular vote!

And we also have a privileged class of tax cheats who find ways to avoid paying. Fairness in taxation needs to return to this Country

52 posted on 09/29/2011 5:54:45 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
May I propose a Williamson’s Rule of Politics? Here it is: “Any plan that includes the words ‘educating the American people’ will fail.”

That's just a little pessimistic, don't you think?

53 posted on 09/29/2011 5:57:04 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

One of the most important points of this article is the following (which IS true):

“There is no easy way out of this mess.”

I think wise adults understand this. We have decades of unchecked, often ineffective, bureaucratic growth which has insufficient oversight...that needs to be undone. We also have a large segment of the citizenry that is improperly educated with regard to the basic principles of this free nation, does not understand basic economic systems....and has turned its back on God.

We are going to need several good LEADERS in Washington DC who seek God’s help in turning the country around. We need to put a good president in the White House and we need to concentrate on the House and Senate...as well as our local leadership positions.

I still like Perry. I also like Cain. I like the moral principles of Santorum and the knowledge of Gingrich. The contributions of all are going to be necessary.


54 posted on 09/29/2011 5:59:47 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

He also misses the fact that the profits of overseas companies that we import from are not taxed, we would capture some of that with a sales tax.


55 posted on 09/29/2011 6:00:07 AM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Husband and I think the FLAT TAX would be best. (Legal barriers can be amended to allow this.)


56 posted on 09/29/2011 6:08:07 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
I'd rather see your revenue figures now rather than wait and see a few years from now. If Cain's 9-9-9 plan will not even come close to covering current federal spending, how will the 3-3-3 plan do so?

How long did it take for the Reagan tax cuts to start producing a significant increase in federal revenue? There was, after that, a big cut in the capital gains tax that also produced a significant increase in federal revenue. But it didn't happen immediately, though it did happen rather rapidly. You cannot increase federal income in the meantime by increasing tax rates, otherwise, you'll never see the increase in revenue from tax rate reductions.

So the short term way of dealing with things until the revenue stream turns into a torrent is either deficit spending (which is pretty much a dead end now that Obama has pissed so much money away) or serious reduction of spending. The easiest and most immediate "reduction" would simply be to end the baseline budgeting scam that has been, until Obama, the main cause of increased federal expenditure. After that, elimination of duplication between different departments and agencies as well as the elimination of departments and agencies that are not constitutionally mandated. Another way is the elimination of EPA control over the economy and the rest of the regulatory nightmare that has been strangling business. The federal government could also quickly increase revenue from leasing mineral, oil, and gas exploration and development. After all, the United States is one of the richest nations on earth in untapped mineral and energy resources.
57 posted on 09/29/2011 6:14:16 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
I’ll take Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan more seriously as soon as he explains what he will cut to eliminate the $1.7 trillion to $2.2 trillion deficit that it will generate.

Actually, cutting the IRS, killing the EPA, killing the DOE, and other cuts are part of his proposal.

His is a solid Tea Partier in that regard.

58 posted on 09/29/2011 6:20:31 AM PDT by Marie (Cain 9s Have Teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The final legislation is not determined by the POTUS.

That is a *very* good point.

This is the reason he doesn't believe we can go straight to the Fair Tax. That is going to involve a Constitutional Amendment (to repeal the 16th amendment) and we don't have the public support to go there yet.

I believe that we're also going to need another election cycle (2014) to give us a super-majority in the house and the senate to push through the final, drastic changes and end income tax once and for all

Cain has said, repeatedly, that we have to educate the public on the necessity of this move and estimates that it'll take 2 years, after the implementation of the 999 Plan, to gain the required support. "Once the American people understand it, they'll demand it!"

59 posted on 09/29/2011 6:25:13 AM PDT by Marie (Cain 9s Have Teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

And it’s not just the pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers. Many criminal attorneys , service people(plumbers,carpenters,mechanics,yard maintenance,etc) buy and sell for cash hustlers, hair stylist, barbers, waiters and waitresses, illegal gambling houses, never pay income tax. They do have one thing in common. They all use the money they make to live on. Like I said there is a huge underground economy that pays no income tax.


60 posted on 09/29/2011 6:33:01 AM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson