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

Skip to comments.

9 responses to 9 false attacks on the 9-9-9 plan
North Star Writers Group / Herman Cain Author ^ | October 16th, 2011 | Herman Cain

Posted on 10/17/2011 11:08:56 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan

Do you know why candidates for office tend to be reluctant to propose detailed plans? Because they know the plans will be flyspecked and picked apart by just about everyone. Inviting criticism doesn’t help you to get votes.

But fear of criticism prevents you from conceiving solutions to problems. So even if avoidance of criticism helps in propelling you to an election victory, how are you supposed to effectively govern? How are you supposed to fix the problems you told everyone you were going to fix? That’s why I’m happy to see so much criticism of the 9-9-9 plan I’ve proposed. It shows that people are thinking seriously about a substantive idea. When people stop obsessing over “gaffes” and campaign strategy, and start honing in on fixing the country’s economic problems, we are getting somewhere. This is not to say, of course, I’m going to leave poorly founded criticisms of the plan unanswered. Certain objections to the plan are circulating in the usual places, driven by the same kind of thinking that has left us with a stagnant economy, $14 trillion in debt and mounting entitlement obligations. These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:

Claim 1: The 9 percent sales tax, which is one third of the formula, is regressive and hurts the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes now. Response: This claim ignores some important aspects of the plan. One is that we eliminate the 15 percent payroll tax, which allows for no deductions at all – not even for charitable contributions. Some critics have argued that the poor still come out behind because employers pay much of the payroll tax. That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about how compensation works in the business world. An employer decides to accept a certain cost-of-employment for each employee, and the employer’s share of the payroll tax is part of that cost. It comes out of your compensation whether you realize it or not. Also, a flat tax is not – by definition – a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same rate. And it is not an added tax, but a replacement tax, whose total burden is determined by the consumer’s spending decisions. Finally, the best way to help the poor is by spurring economic growth, which the current tax code will never do, and which the 9-9-9 plan is specifically designed to do.

Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them. Even if we repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminated the income tax, as some demand in return for establishing a consumption tax, politicians could raise that rate too. What’s far more important here is the fact that the very simple, flat-rate structure of the 9-9-9 plan, which allows no deductions, loopholes or exemptions (with the exception of charitable contributions for the income tax), is a far more growth-friendly tax structure than the mangled mess of rates, taxes, exemptions and ill-conceived incentives we have today. It virtually eliminates the massive compliance costs of the current tax code, and it restrains the size of government. By taking away the politicians’ gateway drug of loopholes and deductions, we make it much more difficult for them to mess with the tax code. Having said that, any plan could be criticized for what it would look like if someone messed it up. The plan as I’m proposing it is a huge improvement over the status quo.

Claim 3: The plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Response: It does no such thing. It is fair and neutral, taxing everything once and nothing twice. What’s more, we are getting ready to propose empowerment zones for economically struggling areas in which the rates will be even lower. That will allow the poor to benefit even more from the plan than they already would.

Claim 4: The plan should have included a pre-bate to offset the sales tax. Response: The last thing we need is to establish another federal entitlement, which the proposed pre-bate would quickly become. And it’s not necessary. The consumption tax replaces ones already embedded in prices. It’s not the prices that would increase, but the visibility of the taxes being paid. Right now, money is deducted from your paycheck and you never see it, so it doesn’t feel like you paid a tax. But you did. With the 9-9-9 plan, you feel it, and I suspect a good many people who clamor for higher taxes will start to feel differently as a result. But they won’t be paying more than before. They’ll just be more aware of it.

Claim 5: The business tax represents a new tax on labor. Response: Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes this claim because we do not allow businesses to deduct the cost of labor from their taxable revenue. But the claim is bogus for several reasons. First, we are reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 9 percent, so the tradeoff is a much lower rate paid on more of a company’s income. Second, we treat capital and labor the same, both with the corporate tax and with the income tax. That is fair and neutral. What’s more, the current system taxes both capital investment by business and capital gains by individuals. That’s a double tax, and the 9-9-9 plan eliminates it.

Claim 6: The numbers don’t add up. The 9-9-9 tax wouldn’t generate enough revenue. Response: Several groups apparently “ran the numbers” and came to this conclusion, including Bloomberg News and the Center for American Progress. Our report, which they do not appear to have read, demonstrates that it generates the same revenue as the current tax code, and our methodology is visible for anyone to see. Those who are making this claim should release their scoring so their methodology is as visible as ours.

Claim 7: The 9-9-9 plan is a really an 18 percent value-added tax plus a 9 percent income tax. Response: That’s an argument? That some might be able to give it a disagreeable label? What we have done is split the incidence of the tax so it is harder to evade – since you’d have to dodge two taxes, not just one, to save the 18 percent. And by eliminating loopholes we’ve made that virtually impossible to do anyway. I don’t really care what people call it. What matters is how it works.

Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two. More to the point, though, everyone has the same opportunity to work hard, earn capital and put that capital at risk. Whatever I have earned has come from hard work, good decisions (and some bad ones), a willingness to take risks and a constant honing of strategy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing. I realize many are being told there are no opportunities available to them, but that is not true and I wish people – for their own sakes – would stop listening to such doom and gloom and come to understand all the opportunity that truly exists, and learn how to access it.

Claim 9: It won’t pass. Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work. One of the worst instincts of Washington types is to judge an idea not on its substantive merits, but on their perception of its political viability. I do not underestimate the challenge of getting any good idea through Congress, but I have said all along that if you propose a good idea, and the people understand the idea, they will pressure Congress to pass it. So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; 999; cain; hermancain; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last
To: republicangel; CharlesWayneCT

>> “this may make accounting jobs hard to find if they get rid of the IRS” <<

.
Don’t take down your shingle yet.

How about Professional consultants? They’ll be fighting to show that most of their contracts consist of expenses, like labor, and other secondary professional consultation expenses, and thus we’ll have an IRS type agency anyway for the consumption tax.


151 posted on 10/17/2011 4:17:14 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

9% income tax - helps middle class, upper class
9% corporate tax - helps upper class, exec. bonuses
9% sales tax - hurts lower class (essentials), middle class (please, may I put another coal on the fire?), and the upper class (Botox diet!)

Presumptive BONUS: This will create Jobs.
Presumptive REALITY: Corporations are absolutely drowning in cash and NOT hiring today, as it is.

Furthermor, as soon as the spigot turns off at the Federal Reserve, bond prices are going to go into freefall. Add that sales tax on top of rampant inflation, and that’s ballgame.

Money is absolutely DIRT CHEAP. That should tell all of you something about what the problem is. It’s not corporate taxes. It’s the Federal Reserve.

This plan will not address the underlying cancers in the economy:

1) Government spending
2) The Federal Reserve


152 posted on 10/17/2011 4:22:59 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"Cain’s plan doesn’t reduce the total taxes paid. So it can’t “reduce prices of goods” due to lower taxes..."

Excellent post...the wife and I are nearing retirement and any plan with a national sales tax is a "non-starter" for us. Our income/saving were fully taxed at about 14% federal and about 38% total (all state, local, federal taxes) and now as we are planning several large purchases (truck/RV) 9-9-9 & "Fair" Tax are proposing large sales taxes!! (In addition to our current 8% state sales taxes)  Start talking about tax reduction and government cuts and then we can talk about tax reform ie. a 10-15% flat tax.

153 posted on 10/17/2011 4:32:14 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Yours is the best answer I've seen yet on those points.
154 posted on 10/17/2011 4:38:56 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Your money that you draw out of your 401K will be taxed, wouldn't you like it at the lower 9% rate? It wasn't taxed when you put it in the 401k, because they are going to tax it when you withdraw it.

401k's are not tax-free, they are only tax deferred.

155 posted on 10/17/2011 5:03:53 PM PDT by republicangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: republicangel; Rutles4Ever; Drago
Sorry I posted to wrong person before...Meant for Drago

Your money that you draw out of your 401K will be taxed, wouldn't you like it at the lower 9% rate? It wasn't taxed when you put it in the 401k, because they are going to tax it when you withdraw it. 401k's are not tax-free, they are only tax deferred. All of the retirement accounts will have taxes collected upon withdrawal.

156 posted on 10/17/2011 5:07:05 PM PDT by republicangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The more I see of this 999 proposal, the less I like it. Even if it is stipulated, that it would be good for the country, it seems that it would also be a political disaster for him. He would be killed by the Democrats.


157 posted on 10/17/2011 5:07:42 PM PDT by NathanR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: NathanR

>> “He would be killed by the Democrats” <<

.
Precisely, and for nothing, since there is no visible path through congress for it.


158 posted on 10/17/2011 5:12:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Drago

Are you going to have room in your RV for your kids and grandchildren if they are jobless and homeless?


159 posted on 10/17/2011 5:12:38 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: republicangel

>> “wouldn’t you like it at the lower 9% rate?” <<

.
I think you mean at the 9% +9% +9% rate?

The minimum would be 18% if the third 9% tax was not on income or consumption.


160 posted on 10/17/2011 5:15:19 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

Nice work!


161 posted on 10/17/2011 5:16:06 PM PDT by Randy Larsen (I Stand With Cain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
1)How are you going to get around the Constitutional issues?

2) If somehow you're able to get around the Constitutional issues, you've got another problem - the "tyranny of the status quo" which takes over about 100 days after the new guy is in office. Why not just get a bill passed immediately after taking office that 1) immediately lowers both income and sales taxes to 9% as proposed and 2) calls for BOTH a complete phase-out of income tax while creating and phasing in a sales tax? Otherwise you risk getting bogged down midstream with a sales tax without having passed a bill abolishing the income tax - a Socialists dream.

162 posted on 10/17/2011 5:28:21 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
IF the company doesn’t increase their pay to the employee, the company will have the money to re-invest and grow. Or they will pay it out as dividends to their shareholders.

That's entirely true, and a far more likely scenario than the company passing the FICA tax savings on to the employee. It is, after all, an expense to the company so it makes sense for the company to use the savings to the best advantage of the company itself. So if we can agree that the odds are heavily against the employee getting the money then can we also agree that it should not be factored into the employee tax bill under the current tax law?

163 posted on 10/17/2011 5:40:33 PM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

Bttt


164 posted on 10/17/2011 5:43:44 PM PDT by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

>> “REALITY: Corporations are absolutely drowning in cash and NOT hiring today, as it is.” <<

.
Obamacare.


165 posted on 10/17/2011 5:50:16 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"Face it folks. Cain's 999 tax plan is more a political ploy then anything else. Its a gimmick to hoodwink conservatives into supporting his plan and voting for Cain in the primaries."

I totally disagree. Making all taxes visible to the public is most desirable. Our current 67,000 page tax code is that large to provide loopholes and wiggle room for the large corporations and political elites. I am guessing the 9-9-9 tax code would be miniscule in comparison. I doubt that it would be anywhere close to 100 pages. We are currently double and triple taxed and its all hidden from public view. You purchase an Item at X dollars and it may have 5 or 6 levels of taxes already added to the price. You pay the last tax and never know about the hidden taxes. The 9-9-9 plan also assures that everyone with income contributes something as apposed to our current situation where 50% of the public pays zero.

166 posted on 10/17/2011 5:56:04 PM PDT by lwoodham (There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
"1)How are you going to get around the Constitutional issues?"

You get around the constitutional issues by keeping your eye on the conservative sparrow and electing Tea Party conservatives to the House and Senate in 2012. There are people who need to be removed from both the House and Senate. That is how we do it. Vote them out and elect someone who cares about "We the People". 2010 was a good start. We MUST do the same or better in 2012.

167 posted on 10/17/2011 6:02:49 PM PDT by lwoodham (There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: republicangel

My argument doesn’t particularly address whether a different tax code would eventually be better. I think changes should be made in small increments so people have plenty of time to adjust.

If you could make a tax system that was trivially simple, it would destroy a significant part of the economy, and put a lot of people out of work. If they had time to find new ways to make money, it would be an easier transition.


168 posted on 10/17/2011 6:04:58 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

If all the hidden taxes are eliminated and the only tax that is paid is the 9% sales tax when you purchase an item, I can imagine that gasoline would become much cheaper. Gasoline probably has more hidden taxes than any other item. Gasoline prices affect all other prices in a big way. If prices are substantially reduced on gasoline it would be like a shot of adrenaline to the economy.

The more I study and understand the 9-9-9 plan the more I like it.


169 posted on 10/17/2011 6:12:22 PM PDT by lwoodham (There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

I apologize, I’m trying not to make assumptions. His plan, at his web site, explicitly states that phase one enhanced is to be “passed” by the supercommittee. What I put in my comment was the quote from his plan.

The rest is conjecture as to why he thinks the supercommittee can pass anything, or why if he really meant “recommend”, he thinks his plan should be built in secret by a 12-member committee and then sent to the house and senate to be passed without debate or amendment. I say THAT because the debt ceiling bill that created the supercommittee mandated that their recommendations be treated that way.

So the Cain proposal calls for his 9-9-9 plan to be passed by the supercommittee, which if he means “recommended” would require a house and senate vote with no amendment or debate.

Now, if I know that, Cain certainly knows that. So why did he say “pass”, and why doesn’t he want debate or amendment?

And since the supercommittee is going to finish their work in the next few weeks, when is Cain going to send his proposal to them in legislative form so they could “pass” it?


170 posted on 10/17/2011 6:12:31 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

Cain SAID it was OK to call it a VAT.


171 posted on 10/17/2011 6:14:55 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham

Does 9-9-9 including eliminating gas taxes?


172 posted on 10/17/2011 6:18:05 PM PDT by magritte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

SO, if I understand your comment (pretty lazy of you to just repost a comment to someone else that doesn’t particularly apply to how I addressed you, but I’m sure you are just too busy to bother with decorum), you don’t care how conservative Perry has governed, because in his position as Governor, he spoke at a convention of La Raza held in his state.

That certainly is your right, but it does nothing to support your false claim that Perry can’t be trusted to be conservative.


173 posted on 10/17/2011 6:24:48 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
People posting these “comparisons” completely ignore the elimination of deductions, both at the corporate and individual income tax level. Individuals lose their child tax credits, their dependent deductions, their marriage penalty deductions, their mortgage interest deductions, their state sales tax deductions, their medical payment deductions.

There are good reasons to oppose Cains plan, as I do, but what you describe here is not one of them. The federal government has no business treating those who choose to remain single, childless or unencumbered by a home mortage any differently than they do those who choose to be married with children with mortgages they can not afford to pay.

What you advocate is a system that chooses winners and losers to buy votes. Same in the corporate world and one of the major problems with a national sales tax is the ability of Congress to tax things they like at lower rates than that which they don't like.

174 posted on 10/17/2011 6:26:27 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Under the Cain plan, labor costs are taxed (are not deductable for purposes of determining net income). He explains that this is part of how he lowers the tax rate, by taxing a lot more of the money a company gets.

So, a company no longer would avoid taxes by hiring more people, removing that incentive, as opposed to a capital investment in a robot that can take an employee’s job, which I think will be deductable.

Although since Cain actually does NOT have a detailed plan, or even much of a plan at all, I’m not sure what exactly is taxed and not taxed under the Cain tax proposal, except what he tells us from time to time.


175 posted on 10/17/2011 6:28:45 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham
If all the hidden taxes are eliminated and the only tax that is paid is the 9% sales tax when you purchase an item, I can imagine that gasoline would become much cheaper

You can imagine that all you want but it is by no means certain.

With a national sales tax every products tax rate will be at the whim of the next Congress. Think about it.

176 posted on 10/17/2011 6:32:10 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

...If you could make a tax system that was trivially simple, it would destroy a significant part of the economy, and put a lot of people out of work. If they had time to find new ways to make money, it would be an easier transition....

Yeah we need to keep those non-productive paper pushing jobs and expenses as a brake on the economy so everyone suffers not just the few who need to be retrained to do something productive for a change...we have had more “tax reforms” in my lifetime than I can remember we need to go cold turkey.


177 posted on 10/17/2011 7:06:28 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"With a national sales tax every products tax rate will be at the whim of the next Congress. Think about it."

I agree that any tax hikes are at the whim of Congress, but isn't that already the case? Herman Cain said it best. Don't elect those who would raise the tax rate. Also there is more tax on gasoline than that graph shows. It represents the final tax you pay as a consumer but doesn't show the taxes paid by the middle men which also increases the price. The refiners pay a tax which they add on to the price, the distributors pay a tax and pass it on, and so do the local jobbers. I remember about 15 years ago the effective tax on gasoline was roughly 53 cents/gallon. I am sure its much higher now.

178 posted on 10/17/2011 7:09:37 PM PDT by lwoodham (There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Ok is it easier to raise a tax on 50% of the voters or 100% of the voters?

The first group might re-elect you, the second group without real proof of the need to raise taxes might tar and feather you as they ride you out of DC on a rail....


179 posted on 10/17/2011 7:14:18 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Drago

Most Fairtax proposals use some sort of pre-bate to try to overcome the problem of re-taxing savings. It complicates things, but at least makes it a little less onerous.

I’m not sure how to handle the transition from income to consumption taxes without punishing savers and rewarding debtors. But since there are a lot more debtors than savers, such a plan can get majority suport.


180 posted on 10/17/2011 7:18:36 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: republicangel
"Your money that you draw out of your 401K will be taxed, wouldn't you like it at the lower 9% rate?"

If my top tax rate is 15% I am really paying something less because of the current 10% bracket (from the Bush cuts), so my rate is about 12%. Take away my simple deductions and exemptions and it may come up to 15%. So you're suggesting that I'd like to pay 9% income tax and 9% sales (all is spent), for a new total of 18%. [A lower cost of products won't help because everybody gets it.] Again, I PAID PAYROLL TAXES on all I put into the 401k (and all workers are currently paying it). It might be a great deal for those starting work after the plan is implemented but (I've read all the promise ladden replies) its not a good deal for anyone older. I like CAIN, and I know the plan would never get implemented as stated, but this is a problem.

I would suggest he set up an official, and more sophisticated, calculator and address the concerns of those who pay more. He should either say, "This plan is perfect!", and lose my vote, or state, "There may be some issues and it may need some tweaking or temporary tax limitations on previous earnings, but the basic goal of simplicity can still be maintained."

181 posted on 10/17/2011 7:27:10 PM PDT by LZ_Bayonet ( I AM THE TEA PARTY LEADER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I’m not opposed to elimination of most deductions, including the mortgage deduction (I would oppose eliminating them in one step, but would phase them out over time).

I was simply saying that you have to take that into account when you are comparing total taxes paid before and after the plan takes effect. Everybody defending the plan talks about reducing taxes from 35% to 9%, while ignoring that the 9% tax will apply to a lot more income, because of the loss of deductions.

I do support deductions for marriage and children (in general, deductions for dependents within a legally defined family). Government exists for the common good of society, and has a compelling interest in “guarding the commons”. A stable family unit is the backbone of our society, and without it government as we formed it cannot survive. So setting the tax code so it does not discourage the family unit is a good thing.

The tax code should not favor two unmarried people living together over two married people living together (current code does that, even with the marriage deduction). But the tax code should take into account the cost of the family unit. A person who has to provide for 4 people should pay less in tax than a person who only provides for themselves.

Cain lets people take deductions for charitable contributions. What is more charitable than raising a child who cannot care for themselves? Under the Cain plan, you get no deduction for raising your own kid, but if you put your kid into foster care, and donate money to the foster family to raise your kid, you get a deduction. That is messed up.


182 posted on 10/17/2011 7:29:45 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Mock all you want. Our government has made laws that have existed for decades, and those laws created the need for people who understood the tax code. It isn’t those people’s fault for meeting that need. Sure, government could eliminate that need tomorrow, but government does have an obligation not to destroy the lives of it’s citizens who in good faith dedicated themselves to servicing the needs of other citizens, even if that need was an artificial need created by the government.


183 posted on 10/17/2011 7:33:51 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
"Current retirees are enjoying a rate of return far higher than future retirees will likely see on their payroll contributions."

One, we have made some profit in the past but have never regained the 2007 values. Two, "likely" has a long history of unreliability. If I were trying to push the ultimate success of Cain's plan I wouldn't want to make that argument.

184 posted on 10/17/2011 7:36:26 PM PDT by LZ_Bayonet ( I AM THE TEA PARTY LEADER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
"Are you going to have room in your RV for your kids and grandchildren if they are jobless and homeless?"

"For the children" is exactly why I will actively work against the "Fair" Tax or 9% national sales tax...both are "revenue neutral" and will suppress what is left of the consumer economy.  Cut spending and move towards a flat tax in the 10-15% range if you want jobs "for the children".

185 posted on 10/17/2011 7:41:07 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: rconser; Brookhaven

“Regardless, Cain is obviously nothing more than a Stalking Horse for Romney to split up the Conservative vote so that Romney can win with less than 30% of the vote.”

Whoa, whoa, Cain was running for president when Perry was still contemplating his navel. So who’s the “stalking horse”?
I don’t dislike Perry. I have a problem with his immigration position, but I would vote for him over Romney, and certainly over the idiot in chief, but dammit, I’m sick of politicians. It’s refreshing to see a real person running for office. I want term limits in congress for the same reason (see my tagline).
So far, since Palin isn’t running, Cain’s my guy, and there is no way he is running to help Mittens, he is running to be President.
Imagine how refreshing it would be to have regular, plain spoken guy in the White House.


186 posted on 10/17/2011 7:52:45 PM PDT by rikkir (Political office should be a sacrifice, not a reward. Do your service and GO HOME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Drago

I am glad you are working towards a flat tax, let me know when it gets some recent traction. Most anything is better than the garbage we have now. Cain says on his site the 999 came as a way to merge the flat taxers with the fair taxers...so we really arent that far apart IMO.


187 posted on 10/17/2011 8:04:40 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: republicangel
"Your money that you draw out of your 401K will be taxed, wouldn't you like it at the lower 9% rate? It wasn't taxed when you put it in the 401k, because they are going to tax it when you withdraw it. 401k's are not tax-free, they are only tax deferred. All of the retirement accounts will have taxes collected upon withdrawal."

Under current federal income tax rules we would be paying about 5.5% on the funds withdrawn from our 401k's (we aren't "rich"), how is 9% PLUS a new federal 9% sales tax better?!? 

188 posted on 10/17/2011 8:05:06 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Pigsley
Bump? Go here and scroll down to Bump.

Lots of other stuff on that thread worth looking at.

189 posted on 10/17/2011 8:22:02 PM PDT by upchuck (Rerun: Think you know hardship? Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

...Sure, government could eliminate that need tomorrow, but government does have an obligation not to destroy the lives of it’s citizens who in good faith dedicated themselves to servicing the needs of other citizens, even if that need was an artificial need created by the government....

You forgot your sarcasm tag, the govcenment doesn’t owe anyone a living. What school of conservatism did you go to? Thats why we are in the mess wee are in too many bleeding heart liberals. Tell me what do you say to the thousands of unemployed auto workers or those in furniture factories or other industries that lost out to China? They provided a needed service and are now gone. Doctors and Obamacare are going to take a hit. My business takes a hit due to govt action nobody helped me. Cry me a river does the govt owe everyone a living too? Sounds like communism to me. What happened to adapt, overcome, improvise?

Will the tax lawyers and preparers will be protesting with OWS...gimmee gimmee gimme. You choose your occupation and take your chances.

Its called progress, it has winners and losers. If the list tern can’t get out of the way of the D-9 Caterpillar its gone.


190 posted on 10/17/2011 8:22:35 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Now, if I know that, Cain certainly knows that. So why did he say “pass”, and why doesn’t he want debate or amendment?


Perhaps it’s just an error in wordsmithing. Big deal.


191 posted on 10/17/2011 8:51:00 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

FAFR (filing away for reference)


192 posted on 10/17/2011 9:37:50 PM PDT by Loud Mime (The Obama voters are dumber than you think, meaner than you can imagine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham

Cain will need money to win, the establishment is going to fight this
Every step. The tax code is their power source. Everyone needs to
Send Cain $9.99 he can do it with many small donations


193 posted on 10/17/2011 9:40:31 PM PDT by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

bttt


194 posted on 10/17/2011 11:42:55 PM PDT by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCornerOffice
Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them......

How cute. Now we only need to control that no Democrats ever get elected.

Let's hear an argument from Herman Cain himself that he wrote last November.

That's the great thing about Cain. If you don't like what Cain says today, just wait a few days or a few months and he will then say the exact opposite.

=================

November 21, 2010, By Herman Cain

"The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.

Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table.

First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. ......

Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. ....

For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, ...."

Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside. A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country.

195 posted on 10/17/2011 11:57:35 PM PDT by Polybius (Defeating Obama should be Priority Number One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
“Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians.

This is the most substantive of the criticisms levied against 9-9-9 and he pretends it’s not important by saying essentially that “well, any plan could be twisted by bad politicians.”

Herman Cain aims to please, LibertarianInExile.

Since you did not like that answer, Herman Cain argues THE EXACT OPPOSITE in my Post 195.

===========================

November 21, 2010, By Herman Cain

"The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.

Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table.

First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. ......

Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. ....

For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, ...."

Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside. A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country.

196 posted on 10/18/2011 12:03:12 AM PDT by Polybius (Defeating Obama should be Priority Number One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Drago; republicangel
"Your money that you draw out of your 401K will be taxed, wouldn't you like it at the lower 9% rate? It wasn't taxed when you put it in the 401k, because they are going to tax it when you withdraw it. 401k's are not tax-free, they are only tax deferred. All of the retirement accounts will have taxes collected upon withdrawal.".... republicangel

Under current federal income tax rules we would be paying about 5.5% on the funds withdrawn from our 401k's (we aren't "rich"), how is 9% PLUS a new federal 9% sales tax better?!? ...... Drago

And what about current savers, republicangel?

I just retired, on my own savings, after three decades of workaholic medical practice.

My savings have ALREADY been Income Taxed at the top rate of 35%. Once I spend my savings, under the 9-9-9 Plan, that money will be taxed AGAIN by a 9% Sale Tax.

How is that double-taxation of current savings "better"?

Cain has not though this thing through. In fact, Cain did not think of it himself at all.

=======================

From fan to The Man: How Cleveland's Rich Lowrie claimed a place in Herman Cain's inner circle

That's how Lowrie found himself this summer on a New Hampshire-bound flight with Cain, sketching the tax-reform plan that in recent weeks has become a household name and helped Cain surge to the head of the Republican field.

"I had one question for him," Lowrie said of the chat. "How bold do you want to be?"

Cain, "with his signature smile and booming voice," leaned in and replied: "Bold."

And so, "9-9-9" was born -- a proposal to replace the federal tax code with a flat 9 percent tax on personal income and businesses and a 9 percent national sales tax.

=======================

197 posted on 10/18/2011 12:15:19 AM PDT by Polybius (Defeating Obama should be Priority Number One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them. Even if we repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminated the income tax, as some demand in return for establishing a consumption tax, politicians could raise that rate too.

Right, Herman, all we need to do is elect politicians who won't raise taxes - and as everyone knows, they're a dime a dozen. So hey, I've got an idea: why don't you make it a $0.0000000000000000000001 tax ON EVERY HUMAN BREATH? Huh, Herman? After all, what do we have to fear, unless we irresponsibly elect politicians that will raise that rate? I mean, it's not like we're fighting a war against Leftists and RINOs, right?

Oh, and very slick, imagining the repeal the 16th Amendment, since THAT is exactly what you're NOT doing that makes 999 so lethal. So what's the difference? Well let's see - how about the fundamental difference between a Constitutional Excise Tax, versus the imposed corporate income tax system we have now? As president, would you like to at least attempt to show us that you know the difference between the two?

But why should I argue with you, Herman? Why don't I just let YOU rebut YOURSELF. Less than a year ago, on November 21, 2010, YOU WROTE:

"The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.

"Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table.

"First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. ......

"Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. ....

"For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, benefits have gone down and they are still on a path of insolvency.

"Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside.

"A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country."

Thanks, Herman - I couldn't have said it better myself.

198 posted on 10/18/2011 12:23:52 AM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rconser

rconser - Sincer 2011-10-08:

Troll much?


199 posted on 10/18/2011 1:03:47 AM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (Fuel up the Cain Train! Donate today! - - - https://www.hermancain.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“Cain SAID it was OK to call it a VAT.”

It’s not a VAT, big difference between a VAT and a sales tax. A VAT is taxed at every level of the distribution chain. Cain’s sales tax is taxed at only the end point.

To attempt to say the 999 is a VAT tax is a deception. To attempt to take a conversation out of context and imply Cain is saying his 999 Plan is a VAT is deceitful.


200 posted on 10/18/2011 3:14:22 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 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