Herman Cain Gets Defensive Over 999 Tax Plan (Now that he's surging, the scrutiny comes)

Christian Post ^ | 10/10/2011 | Stephanie Samuels

[DTxAg]

In your example, the family was paying $0 in federal income tax. Yes, under the Cain plan that family will pay more. I’m not sure I disagree with that result. The point of the plan is to take away the “winner and loser” system we have now and make everyone pay for government.

At the end of the day, I'd love to see a flat tax where everyone gets charged the same rate, but this plan is electoral suicide. You can't run for President on a plan that increases the average household's taxes and massively cuts their spending power. I said elsewhere this is more of a reelection campaign strategy, as in "I've spent the last 4 years revitalizing the economy by halving the size of government and cutting your taxes, now let's get serious" kind of thing.

[cizinec]

Add an interest deduction to your example and you have a household that pays $0 or may even get a “refund” of income tax.

So, is it your position that if you make the median income, you shouldn’t have to pay for things like national security, but if you’re above median (or some other arbitrary number) you do?

Yes, some tax winners in the current system are going to pay more. In the case of companies like GE, a lot more. In your example, the family will be paying income tax, maybe for the first time. I don’t have a problem with that.

[Database]

I wonder if you might rework your example to include the
savings in payroll taxes for both the business and the
employee. I suspect its pretty much a wash in this case.

[DTxAg]

No, my point is that it is ELECTORAL SUICIDE to run on a platform that reduces the average household’s spending power from roughly $46,000 to roughly $41,000. You’re talking about an 11% decrease in the spending power of the average household. Although by the sounds of it, it may be more like a 12% or 13% decrease in the spending power of the average household if my numbers are wrong.

[cizinec]

“At the end of the day, I’d love to see a flat tax where everyone gets charged the same rate, but this plan is electoral suicide.”

I think that’s an assumption Cain is testing. If he survives and wins, I’m not afraid of the 9-9-9 plan, because there is no way congress will pass it the way it’s currently presented. I am genuinely excited that a candidate can make something *like* the 9-9-9 thing an issue and he is considered a serious candidate.

[DTxAg]

I wonder if you might rework your example to include the savings in payroll taxes for both the business and the employee. I suspect its pretty much a wash in this case.

It's already there. Under the current plan, the employer pays 7.65% of the $49,500. Under the Cain plan, the employer pays 9% of the $49,500 since payroll (paychecks to employees) are NOT a business deduction any more, so the business has to pay the 9% business income tax on that $49,500 (unless the business is fortunate enough to be in an "empowerment zone").

[DTxAg]

I think that’s an assumption Cain is testing. If he survives and wins, I’m not afraid of the 9-9-9 plan, because there is no way congress will pass it the way it’s currently presented. I am genuinely excited that a candidate can make something *like* the 9-9-9 thing an issue and he is considered a serious candidate.

But don't you think that it's politically stupid to present a plan you KNOW can't possibly pass but that gives your general election opponent massive ammunition against you? If we admit that the Cain plan increases taxes on the poor, on the average family, on Social Security retirement recipients, etc., we're running out of people who will VOTE for Cain if he is the nominee. It's a bit late in the general election to go "oops, just kidding, let's talk about all the loopholes we can write back into the tax code."

[sockmonkey]

No, my point is that it is ELECTORAL SUICIDE to run on a platform that reduces the average household’s spending power from roughly $46,000 to roughly $41,000.

The plan is electoral suicide. The taxing groceries/food, especially for those in states which already tax food isn't going to fly.

[SoJoCo]

The point of the plan is to take away the “winner and loser” system we have now and make everyone pay for government.

But surely you can see that when in doing so you raise the taxes of over half the people out there, those losers are not likely to be overly enthusiastic. The goal of an election is to win. Alienating over half the electorate is not going to promote that.

I really think the power of the 9-9-9 debate is the debate, not the plan.

It's what he's running on.

[slowhandluke]

Yes, they can raise the current taxes. Raising taxes after 9-9-9 will be no more visibile than current tax increases.

The point is to limit the beast. I think it's more important to have max limits on the taxes no matter if we have the current laws or 9-9-9.

Once upon a time, it was thought silly to limit the income tax to 5 or 10%. Why, Congress might think they should raise it that high!

The 9-9-9 plan adds a currently unconstitutional sales tax. Adding it without firm limits is not smart, to say the least. Almost immediately we'll see the left proclaiming the wonders of the high levels of the European VAT tax.

As far as 'everyone' goes, 81% of the populace wants Obamacare to go. And they didn't want it in the first place, but we got it.

We've proved that the left will strangle this country with high income tax. They'll do the same with the sales tax.