Posted on 10/21/2011 12:29:30 PM PDT by Evil Slayer
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said on Friday that poor Americans will not have to pay the 9 percent flat income tax under his now-famous “9-9-9” tax reform plan.
During a speech in front of a vacant train depot in Detroit, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO staunchly defended his signature tax proposal from critics who say it will raise taxes for lower-income Americans.
Cain’s plan would throw out the current tax system in favor of a 9 percent corporate tax, a 9 percent income tax and a new 9 percent national sales tax.
He said Friday that poor people under his plan would be exempt from paying the income tax.
“If you’re at or below the poverty level, your plan isn’t 9-9-9,” Cain said. “It’s 9-0-9.”
The former pizza executive also unveiled his proposal on Friday for “opportunity zones” to help “renew distressed inner cities.” His proposal includes offering tax exemptions to businesses that invest in these zones.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
It’s nothing like what is being portrayed on this thread.
There is a better discussion here, including the text of the plan:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2796060/posts
What I like is that to qualify for the income tax cut, the area has to be right to work, and have school vouchers. That is a stake in the heart of the democrat stronghold - unions and education. I think it’s genius
BIG_LETDOWN_PING!
You know that congress would never raise the rate beyond 9% because.....?
Once he is all the way there, then he will have something he can really run on.
Keep it simple — “I’ll cut taxes and cut federal spending — beginning with the phony baloney Obamacare, and give a colonoscopy to the Obama administration’s money laundering operations like Solyndra.” Thanks Evil Slayer.
OMG did you really just say that seriosuly?
Your 'employer' does not pay it. YOU pay it.
What difference would it make if he gave you all 15% first, and then you sent it all in?
If your employer pays you a salary of 100 dollars then it costs him 107.50 dollars to hire you. He could give you all 107.50 dollars and you could send it in, and it would cost him exactly the same.
The actual money, however, comes out of the employer's pocket. It is part of the gross, and the employer deducts that amount on the 941 from the gross, prior to calculating income.
It is the same with "raising taxes on the rich". Simply put, there is less of them, but the money comes from their customers, yes, everyone else. It simply shifts the "blame" in raised costs to the rich, rather than where they should be, the congress.
The more Cain talks the less I like him.
Look.
If your employer hires you at 100K per year, what does it COST him?
107,500.
What difference does it make if he gives you 100K and gives 7K to the government, or pays you ALL the 107K and you sending it ALL to the government yourself? Or it would be like giving you a salary of 93K and him sending in 15K to the govt...
The bottom line is that when you get a job, what is the COST to the employer- it is ALL the expenses of hiring you including health insurances, etc.
The difference is that if the employee was made to pay the whole amount, the employee would be more conscious of the total amount he is being robbed of, rather than think of the feds as benevolent in making the employer match the employee's "contribution."
The whole scam with the feds is about raising more cash. Only they wish to "hit" the employer, not the employee, because there are less of them that vote.
It still comes out of the sweat of the population at large.
Same with the minimum wage. The feds are not looking out for the poor employee who is "living on crumbs." They want to increase the wages, because then they get more "contribution" from the employee and employer, as well as more votes.
The slower ones think they are getting taken care of by the feds, but the net to their pocket is but a fraction, while their withheld and employer matching increase at a steeper rate.
Regards whose money it is, what the employer pays (in the private sector) is what he can get the job done for. He then adjusts the wage as needed to keep those who are productive, and not give raises to those who are not, if not let go.
The employer's contribution is part of the cost of doing business, because the govt forces the employer to match the funds. If the government were to lift those requirements, some employees may get that amount added to their take home, some may not.
It is the employer's decision, not the employee, because it is the employer's money. Even though the employee was the one who may gave generated the money, he never gets back what he puts in, as an employee. The employee will usually generate two to three times the actual paycheck. The private sector employer makes a deal with the private sector employee. This much money for this much work.
He then must reach into his pocket (the employer) to match what the feds demand he withholds from the employee.
ummm dude- you are arguing MY point.
Instead of re-distributing the wealth, maybe we should be re-distributing the tax burden.
Read about employer taxes. Which they are also able to deduct as an expense.
http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/qt/payroll_basics.htm
Rather than going to the supply side for the solution how about attacking the demand side. Just pass a federal law that makes it a federal crime for anyone who is currently receiving, or has received, federal money in the past 4 years, to vote. and make vote fraud (at any level) a federal offense punishable by summary execution.
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.