Posted on 10/15/2011 8:23:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
But shouldn't it? If Cain is expanding his plan as he goes along then shouldn't he provide a place where people could determine exactly what impact it has on them? Or like his advisers and Obama's health care plan we don't need to know the details in order to vote on it?
All I can tell you is I have spoken to his staff, and I have HEARD Herman Cain mention in the debates that a 2/3 majority will be required to increase the 9%.
The Constitutionality of which may be questionable.
Those aren’t on his website either, doesn’t mean that there is NO INTENTION of implementing them.
And no intention of actually implementing them either.
The maximum social security benefit is $31,000. Any income beyond that is taxable.
Which for a married couple could mean an annual benefit of $61,000. Why should a retired couple get their $61,000 tax free and a working couple have to pay $5500 in income taxes and another God knows how much else in sales taxes?
So, if a retiree (after Bush cuts expire) would be in the 15% bracket, AFTER 9-9-9 he would pay 18%.
until 1983 all ss was not taxable now there is an formula for determining taxable or not and portion
That's not my question. Why does he say one thing on one occasion and another thing on his website? Should we just treat everything there with a grain of salt and just watch for what he's saying at any given moment?
>There are a lot of good things about Cain but 9-9-9 isn’t one of them.<
Still not sold on it, but if they got rid of national federal tax it would be more equal. We need to cut spending, agreed, but somewhere along the line it has to be a more fair system as well.
So far Cain looks like the most promising person to beat Obama. That is the priority now.
"Hey granny, let's go shopping!!". ;)
Imagination is fun but in real life we either see 9-9-9 as a confiscation of 9% of everyone's retirement savings, or we jury-rig it with as many loopholes as today's income tax. Another real life fact is we'll get the sales tax added to the current taxes first, and then before any taxes get cut we'll be hearing about 10-10-10 and 20-20-20.
A far better choice is spending cuts begining with the 2/3's for 'human resources' --AKA Endowment for Arts, NPR, and teaching Africans how to wash their penises.
What makes you think Maher would ever pay up on that bet?
Yes, we should always watch what he says as with all politicians, but my point still is this — the idea has some merit, let’s not throw everything out and call it a lousy idea just because it has not been implemented before.
IT CAN BE TWEAKED.
Yes, I admit that it can also be defaced by Congress, but I will argue that EVERY single good dea out there CAN BE TURNED INTO A STEAMING PILE OF DUNG by any future congress.
That only means that voters should be vigilant. That is the only protection we have in our Republic because it was designed to be that way.
RE: like his advisers and Obama’s health care plan we don’t need to know the details in order to vote on it?
And what mekes ou think when the ACTUAL law is drafted, there will be no details in it?
Which candidate IN ANY ELECTION ( Romney and Perry included ) have ALL details on the table?
What you argue against Cain should also apply to the other 7.
The actual law will eventually have all the details. The Representatives you vote for in Congress can vote it down if they don’t like it.
I’m not sure why you would equate Cain to Pelosi at this point in time. Cain has never shied away from defending his plan IN PUBLIC and has never said, vote for it before you can see what’s in it.
RE: Why should a retired couple get their $61,000 tax free and a working couple have to pay $5500 in income taxes and another God knows how much else in sales taxes?
_______________
1) Because they’ve ALREADY paid for it during 40 years of their working lives. Why should they be taxed twice?
2) The current worker will reap the rewards of his contribution WHEN HE RETIRES as well.
3) The retired couple STILl pays for sales taxes on any new item they buy.
4) One request — when you calculate a $40,000 salary and the income tax that person will have to pay, PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION that PAYROLL TAXES that person pays now and the fact that IT WILL NOT BE TAKEN AWAY if Cain’s plan is passed. Payroll taxes are eliminated under Cain’s plan.
Cain’s calculations with payroll taxes eliminated, show that the person ( for a $40,000 salary ) will pay IN EFFECT just close to $700 a year with 9-9-9.
Of course with the current tax system, if the person has kids and a mortgage, he pays nothing. But hey, the point is to broaden the tax base such that EVERYONE gets involved with the running of the government, not just half of all tax payers.
That will ensure that ANY attempt at raising the 9% will be VISIBLE to EVERY tax payer and will help ensure that THEY will also share the burden of any tax increase. In which case, it will force more people to be vigilant.
Then wouldn't you agree that it would be best to go into the battle with a realistic, well thought out, detailed, workable plan rather that a disorganized bunch of random ideas? Cain's scheme has value only in that it starts the discussion. But as it stands, there are too many holes and too many unknowns to jump on board and support the man simply because he spoke up first.
I'd like as many details as far in advance as possible, thank you very much. As it stands right now the plan appears to be an unworkable mess.
Which candidate IN ANY ELECTION ( Romney and Perry included ) have ALL details on the table?
And I've criticized Perry in the past for the lack of details in his proposals. If Romney would come out with a specific proposal on anything then I would likely find things to question in his plans, too.
What you argue against Cain should also apply to the other 7.
I cannot agree more.
Cain has never shied away from defending his plan IN PUBLIC and has never said, vote for it before you can see what’s in it.
No, the problem is that Cain gives all the appearance of making this stuff up as he goes along. The plan on his website bears little resemblance to the plan he talks about at any given moment, which has usually changed from the last time he spoke to someone. I'd like him to get serious about it.
Incorrect. A family of 4 with an income of $40,000 pays nothing in income tax and only $2260 in FICA currently. Under Cain's plan their income tax goes up to $3600, a $1340 increase not $700. Plus they pay an additional 9% on just about everything they buy, which could easily result in another $3000 or so in taxes.
But hey, the point is to broaden the tax base such that EVERYONE gets involved with the running of the government, not just half of all tax payers.
Currently the goal should be to get Obama out of the Oval Office come January 2013. If you have a candidate running on a platform that could double or triple the taxes half the country pays, not to mention taxing the purchases of those retirees who vote like crazy and who don't currently have much of a tax burden, then how can you expect to win? Would you vote for a candidate who will double your taxes? I wouldn't. Why should any other rational person?
Here’s a calculator of how much a family of 4 with an income of $40,000 will pay in taxes :
http://www.nerds4cain.com/Blog/archives/723
Just enter the values and you get their calculations.
The results of their calculations ( including how they calculated it ) are shown on that site.
Here is their conclusion :
_______________
Consequently, the maximum tax increase anyone at the low end of the income scale might see under the 9-9-9 plan is a mere 1.2%.
_____________
Do you agree with their conclusion? If not, maybe you can tell us why...
It isn't working for me. Must not be adapted to Firefox.
Consequently, the maximum tax increase anyone at the low end of the income scale might see under the 9-9-9 plan is a mere 1.2%.
That would be all those people who can afford to devote 20% of their income to charity and savings, and who spend 15% of their disposable income on used items? How realistic is that?
Do you agree with their conclusion? If not, maybe you can tell us why...
No, I don't. In the first place adding the Employer FICA to the equation incorrectly skews the results. That is a cost to the employer, not the employee, and if it is done away with then that's a cost reduction to the employer and not an addition to the employees paycheck.
In the second place, since the tool does not mention marital status or family size then it's impossible to see what it is comparing it to. So for my calculations I did it both ways. First let's look at the median family in this country: husband, wife, and two kids. Use your income of $40,000 per year. Individual deductions are $3650 for each person, standard deduction is $11,400 for a total of $26,000 in deductions and a taxable income of $14,000. That gives them an income tax of about $1400. The current child tax credit brings that down to $600 refund. The Make Work Pay credit brings the refund to $1400. You can argue the logic behind that but it is what it is. So our family also pays the Social Security and Medicaid taxes of 5.65% less the federal refund, for a total tax bill of about $1450. Now lets look at them under the Cain plan. No individual deduction. No standard deduction. No credits. Just a flat tax of 9% for a tax bill of $4500. That's an increase of $3050 in income tax. Add to that the 9% sales tax and their taxes go up another $2000 to $3000 or more. Their taxes easily exceed $8000, a considerable percentage of their income. Far more that they had under the old plan
Now look at it for an individual. One individual deduction and one standard deduction brings his taxable down to $30650. Income tax is $4179, about $500 less than under Cain. His FICA is $2260. So with the 9% sales tax a single person doesn't get hit quite as hard as a married couple does, but taxes do go up.
But in addition to that, what else have you just done? Under Cain's plan the whole concept of 'marriage penalty' is back with a vengeance. If you're single then it's close to a wash. If you're married with a family you are seeing your taxes skyrocket. Where is the benefit of that?
And another thing that doesn't seem to be factored in in all these Cain examples is what he does to state income taxes. In my state, my state taxes are reduced by by standard or itemized deductions. Without those, my taxable income goes up there and the taxes for the people in your example go up another $550 to $750. So under the 9-9-9 plan the hits just keep on coming for people in your example. Married or single. That's why I don't agree with Cain's conclusions.
RE: No standard deduction. No credits. Just a flat tax of 9% for a tax bill of $4500. That’s an increase of $3050 in income tax.
________________________
Excuse me, By what math is $4500 equal to 9% of $40,000? Looks like 11.25% to me? Looks like you need to go back and re-do your calculations.
RE: Their taxes easily exceed $8000, a considerable percentage of their income. Far more that they had under the old plan
__________________
Excuse me, Did you really just claim that a 9% income tax + a 9% sales tax would equal > 20% of total income ($8000 / $40,000 = 20%)?
Typo on my part. The taxes should approach $7000 under the Cain plan - $3600 in income taxes and sales taxes of 9% on all purchases. If the family in question spends just about all their remaining income then that's another $3200 or so. Then there are potential increases in state income taxes and so forth. Still a considerable increase.
“Californians don’t pay their fair share of anything.” This statement simply is not true. California (and most if not all) the big Blue states pay FAR more in federal taxes than they get back. Most of the Red states get back more than they pay in.
I don’t know about your claim of energy subsidization which sounds like an argument over price.
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.