Skip to comments.Norquist: 9-9-9 Isn't a Tax Hike. But...
Posted on 10/12/2011 7:03:13 PM PDT by LonelyCon
"Now," says Norquist, "There are two or three problems with the Fair Tax." (That's the national sales tax, a replacement for all income and FICA taxes, that Cain has long supported -- it's the eventual goal of 9-9-9.) "Because there is a transition period of some length with any tax phase-in, the fear that people have about the sales tax is that, at some point, Democrats win the House or the Presidency, and you get stuck with both the income tax and the new sales tax. Under 9-9-9 they deliberately set up a time period where you have three taxes. They say they are doing what some of us have feared could happen. Even if you say the income tax is going away, there's a chance of getting both."
Second problem: The sales tax has proven to be a "political loser" when torn apart in the heat of a campaign.
Third problem: "Let's say you're 20 years old. You don't care what tax you pay -- you haven't paid any yet. But if I'm 65, I've spent my whole life paying income taxes. I'm about to stop paying them. What's the benefit to me if you bring on a sales tax? Thanks -- you've just made every retired person's pension 33 percent less valuable."
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Are you worried about how it effects you personally, or the country generally?
You can buy used stuff and save a ton!
I’d like to see the calculation behind the “33% less valuable” claim. Either way, seniors, you’re gonna have to re-equilibrate your perspective. Medicare and SS are destroying the country. They must be reformed.
For the country generally. It’s all too easy to raise a sales tax. If you raise people’s income tax, they see a giant change on April 15 and they get pissed. But if you just raise the sales tax a half a percent or so every couple of years, no one cares. “Just a few pennies or dollars more on every little purchase, what’s the big deal, right?”, most people think if they notice the change at all.
The sales tax in Texas now is about 400% of what they swore it would never go above to when it was instituted.
I suppose if congress included in the bill to require a 3/4 majority to raise the tax and a simple majority to lower the tax that you would still oppose?
All these “older tax payers” are sickening in how they feel that they should have nothing cut or made more difficult on them since they’ve been paying taxes all there life. I’m in my mid twenties and have been paying medicare and social security taxes for 9 years. I’ll never see a penny of that money and its all going to fund these liabilities.
Privatize social security, eliminate Medicare. Implement Cain’s plan!
Why not put out some projections of taxes paid now against what Cain is proposing at various incomes and let the voters have a look?
I am also of the belief that a national sales tax would require a constitutional amendment.
I'd want the 9-9-9 to be in the constitution to prevent it from becoming 12-12-12. After the next Republican president, the pendulum will shift back to the Dems at some point.
I’ve been buying used stuff and saving a ton for years...but some people are too brainwashed into “needing” new stuff to try it for themselves. I do believe that I will still need to purchase new toilet paper, though...a tradeoff I am willing to make in exchange for having much more take home pay with which to purchase it.
Pardon my ignorance because i haven’t read up on 9-9-9 but is the 9% national sales tax in ADDITION to state sales tax? or does it replace it?
The price of used stuff will go up. Have you tried to buy a used car lately?
Okay so we drop the sales tax, and settle on 9-9, abolish social security and medicare. :-)
Simple - you put 9-9-9 in the Constitution but include a provision that says it can be temporarily raised in times of national emergency by a 2/3 or 3/4 vote of both houses of Congress.
9-9-9 has nothing to do with state sales taxes or state income taxes. We live in a federal system; each state sets its own sales taxes and income taxes.
If people had to pull out the checkbook and pay it all at once, you would have a point. But when it is "withheld", you never even feel it. Having it felt at the point of purchase would be more painful than it is right now.
In fact, most people get all excited about "a big tax refund!", like they haven't been screwed out of interest when the government took and held too much from them.
It’s on TOP of the state, city, county, local, etc sales taxes. Some locations, people could end up paying 20% sales tax on their purchases.
Duh! This is something I've been saying. And seniors vote. Just wait until they find out Cain wants these people, who have been taxed all their lives, on their earnings, their investments, their savings, that now Cain wants them to pony up again--30% more! Yeah right!
9-9-9 is absolutely toxic. The sooner WE accept that, the better. I know it's nice to chug kool-aid and tell yourself Cain is the One, since Palin isn't the One, and last time Fred Thompson wasn't the One. It's easy to deny reality. But reality will win in the end. Better to face it square on.
If the cost of new stuff goes up 30%, why wouldn't sellers of used stuff raise their prices? Hmmmmm?
How about this? Instead of living in your fantasy world of unicorns and moonbeams, show me a place where a 30% consumption tax is in place and working.
I agree. A much simpler, less controversial way to deal with taxation is to make everyone do what I do: pay quarterly taxes. Let everyone keep all their earnings, and then write a check four times a year. That will set the table for real reform. And that’s for ALL fed taxes, including entitlement taxes.
That’s a plan! (It would actual turn things around)
Cain should not have come out with a specific plan because the vast majority won’t understand it and sure as hell won’t get a real explanation from the MSM
It’s a question of what kind of country and economy and standard of living they would like their grandchildren to have.
Our current system shackles both domestic production and domestic capital formation.
By favoring foreign production of goods and imports with impoverishing huge trade imbalances, we have created a vicious circle of eroding our domestic manufacturing base and enabling capital formation in foreign countries, which then is recycled through ownership and credit interests by foreign entities in our businesses and government.
Our high borrowing and consumption and abysmal savings rates is precipitating a collapse in living standard and an inability to fund future pension and healthcare costs.
If they care at all about their grandchildren, they will work to create a new system which creates domestic jobs and incentivizes savings and capital formation.
In other words, it’s in ADDITION to state sales taxes. And this is a “conservative” touting this nonsense.
If that is your reason for not liking the FairTax, then you are flawed in your thinking.
The income tax has been increased little by little incrementally after each of the 5 major tax reforms since 1913. The rate creeps up and if it doesn’t then inflation moves more people into higher brackets which accomplishes the same thing as moving rates up.
So the income tax is deceptive, smoke and mirrors. And yes some people can be ticked off when they see their taxes go up but the tax policymakers can manipulate which groups get hit and which don’t, setting groups against each other.
According to the proposed FairTax legislation, the rate must be voted on each year by Congress. It will be there for all to see and yes Congress can raise it a little at a time but it will be for all to see, Congress won’t be able target certain groups, it’s much fairer that way.
I don’t either but the country started out with sales and excise, duty taxes. Never an income tax..so any big reduction in that is a very good thing.
Norquist would much rather have shariah and have YOU paying jizya. Anything he says is suspect.
1-2-3 on 9-9-9
1. It’s great economically OVERALL.
Art Laffer endorsed it. It will cut tax complaince dramatically and make USA more competitive.
2. It will have winners and losers.
For working taxpayers with middle or upper incomes - a plus.
For retirees who are done making money - a minus.
3. If there are millions of losers in the low-income retirees category ... it WILL NOT PASS. Santorum may be right. It will be demagogued to death.
I learned a long time ago never to put any credence in the words of a guy named Grover.
YOu fat pig at the trough of real Americans.
You and your College Republican brethern are pond scum.
so you like the income tax?
I agree that we should only have one or the other, and if given the choice, I prefer the voluntary sales tax.
Income taxes are servitude.
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--
(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.
Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.
Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.
Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.'.
And how far did that proposed amendment get? Dead in committee, that’s where. Not even to the floor, much less out to the states.
Know who the first person to propose a balanced budget amendment was? Thomas Jefferson. I’m not holding my breath for one to pass anytime in the next few centuries.
You have a lot of company! The tax on food is especially onerous. Cain’s recent rise in the polls is the only reason anyone is paying attention.
And the Tea Party is buying it hook, line and sinker.
Go figure. Sigh...
But you would then support a complicated code that lets GE pay NO taxes?
The beauty of a national sales tax is that one can’t “soak the rich”. Everyone pays for the services we all share. It’s Zero’s “fair” on steroids.
Art Laffer just endorsed 9-9-9. Supply side economics work.
Earnings: Under 9-9-9 their income tax will go down to 9%. As it stands now they pay their tax rate as well as payroll taxes, which would be eliminated.
Investments: Capital Gains tax will be zero. Right now they are taxed.
Savings: Not taxed under 9-9-9 or currently.
Yes they will have to pay 9% sales tax. But the savings from the cut in taxes on earnings and investments will more than make up for it for the vast majority of people.
They will also be buying goods on which corporate taxes of only 9% have been applied, as opposed to 35%. Price competition will be much more prevalent.
And, of course, they can always buy used!!
You’re certainly a pessimist, aren’t you? A national emergency is anything that 3/4 of Congress says it is. Temporary could be defined by the amendment - as a first stab at it, I’d say that the increase could not extend beyond six months without re-authorization by 3/4 of Congress. That way, the Congress would be forced to continue to re-visit the rate increase, and go on record in support or opposition. Whatever problems you have with this, it would be far, far better than today’s system where rates can be raised at any time permanently by 50% + 1.
richlowrie Rich Lowrie
Sales tax won’t raise prices! Its a REPLACEMENT tax, not an add on tax. It replaces taxes already embedded in prices. Marginal costs go down