Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is a disaster!!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
You might as well turn 9-9-9 to 6-6-6. Not for any Biblical reasons but because the apocolypse of taxation the plan would bring.

If you're going to do a National Sales Tax you have to get rid of the income tax. Cain does no such thing and this is dangerous.

A Democrat could come after Cain and 9-9-9 could turn to 20-20-20 if they say the Government needs more revenues. You would then have an income tax and a national sales tax. This could be an utter disaster for the Country.




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


That was the first thing I noticed, the second was a GIANT RAT!



Let me just add that most wealthy people make all their income in capital gains, which has a different tax rate.

Most wealthy people do not pay estate taxes on their inheritance because they have a trust.

This really just adds a federal sales tax and the poor are more adversely affected.

An easier plan would be no personal income tax, corp income tax at 25%, capital gains unified rate of 35%, and a national sales tax of 5-9%.

The national sales tax also insures the govt can siphon more money from foreigners vacationing and otherwise spending money here.

Easy.
edit on 28-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I propose a 0-0-0 plan. Have the government finance itself through user fees and taxing imports.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


The 9 percent income tax

The centerpiece of the 9-9-9 Plan is to eliminate the current, complicated income tax system -- with its series of tax credits and deductions and its variety of tax rates based on income -- and to replace it with a flat income tax. Cain's flat 9 percent income tax also would replace payroll taxes, which all workers pay and that fund Medicare and Social Security, and would end the estate tax, which is a tax on inheritances. Currently, about 49.5 percent of all tax filers pay no income tax at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a respected bipartisan committee of Congress. Cain's income tax would be collected equally for workers with two exceptions -- taxpayers could claim a deduction for charitable contributions (we haven't heard him discuss a limit) and taxpayers could earn a type of tax credit for living in an "empowerment zone," which Cain has described as inner cities needing revitalization. While the result of this part of Cain's plan would affect taxpayers differently, the flat income tax and the elimination of payroll taxes would result in shifting some of America's tax burden, making some poorer Americans pay more into the system while many middle- and upper-class Americans would pay less.

The 9 percent national sales tax

Cain's national sales tax, in effect, would attempt to make up for the reduction of federal revenue by creating the 9 percent income tax. The national sales tax, which would help fund the federal government, would be on top of state and local sales taxes, which fund state and local government. In Florida, that would create a hypothetical tax rate of 15 percent in most parts of the state. In the Wall Street Journal, Cain said the national sales tax would be levied "on all new goods." (A good question to ask would be whether services are exempted.) Most economists agree that a national sales tax would raise the relative tax burden on low- and middle-income earning taxpayers. "The main reason is that low- and middle-income households consume more of their income than high-income households do," said William Gale, senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "Another way of saying that is high-income households save more of their income than low-income households do."

The 9 percent corporate income tax

The nation's corporate income tax now stands close to 40 percent, so on the surface Cain's plan would be a huge reduction. But that's only part of the story. The current tax structure includes credits and deductions that often reduce the rate at which businesses pay income taxes. According to the World Bank, businesses on average pay an effective tax rate of 27.6 percent. (Of course, some businesses pay at a far lower rate and some pay more.) Like Cain's changes to the personal income tax structure, his plan for businesses would include eliminating many -- though not all -- of the credits and deductions businesses now enjoy.


www.politifact.com...

I thought folks might want to get an idea based on the facts, than just the OP's opinion.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's exactly what I said it was. Another tax on top of the income tax. You can't open this door. You have to have your head in the sand if you think Congress and they're overspending will keep this new tax at 9%.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The big problem with such a plan is that businesses don't pay much sales tax as a percentage of income, and neither do wealthy people.

That plan basically means that the working class will pay 18% and the wealthy and corporations will pay around 9%
The second problem is that is not going to generate anywhere near the income that the federal government receives now. Are we all really ready to stop war mongering? I mean that costs money! Not sure where he got his figures from because those are not from the real world.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 
Then we vote them out. What part of "we are in charge" or "public servants" don't you get?

Look, I'm as cynical as anyone else about government intentions. They are liars, crooks, cheats (and those are just the good ones) but this idea is a good idea.

It's a step in the right direction.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
The second problem is that is not going to generate anywhere near the income that the federal government receives now.

Yup. Government is going to have to cut back. No entitlements, no useless wars, no lavish spending.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's a bad idea. It's like giving a gun to a person that wants to commit suicide. It makes no sense to give politicians another tax on top of the income tax. It's a horrible plan and if another Obama gets in after Cain then 9-9-9 will skyrocket. Why even open that door? If you're going to do a national sales tax, then get rid of the income tax.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's a bad idea. It's like giving a gun to a person that wants to commit suicide. It makes no sense to give politicians another tax on top of the income tax. It's a horrible plan and if another Obama gets in after Cain then 9-9-9 will skyrocket. Why even open that door? If you're going to do a national sales tax, then get rid of the income tax.

I do agree, in principle. BUT. (
) A national sales tax would mean that everyone paid. Everyone would have to chip in. This supplement to the 9% tax would only occur if people were buying. Middle income folks would get hit on their purchases, but high income earners would end up paying more.

The thought of another Obama, does give me pause. Their argument would have to be one of "you need not pay ANY taxes" lets tax the rich more, though. It'd lead to an overt class-warfare battle (not like our current "covert" one *sarcasm*)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Umm...there's nothing stopping government from raising income taxes to 20+% right now. There is no greater risk for an income tax increase with Cain's plan. I think many people will be surprised by how much money the 9% national sales tax will raise. I haven't seen any projections but I would suspect it will wash out. A consumption tax will catch millions of dollars from illegal immigrants who currently pay zero federal taxes. I don't know about others but I'm tired of half the country paying no taxes at all. The current tax code is a joke. 

I believe people should be rewarded for their achievements, not penalized. On the flip side, people should suffer the consequences of poor decisions in their lives and not be rewarded by wealth redistribution. I'm all for trying something different. 

Change can be scary. But being scared shouldn't dissuade us from scrapping the old system and trying something new to get the economy fixed. I do know this much...it ain't working now!!



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Forget about the fact that another politician could come along and raise it at a future date. This doesn't matter since, theoretically, any politician can come in and change the tax rates at any time anyway -- with Congressional support or by Executive Order.

I think Cain is on the right track, but not quite there. Without an income threshold, it would be ridiculous to have a person collect welfare and pay back 9% of it...especially because technically that money comes from taxpayers and is distributed to the poor on behalf of the people by the government The government shouldn't collect a fee for that in my opinion. Welfare limits, etc., I am in favor of but the money set aside for the poor should be given wholly to the poor IMO.

The welfare recipients aside, it is the most free, non-socialist and arguably EQUAL system mentioned thus far.

No penalty for being a good businessman, no opt-out if you are lazy and choose to work less hours, no penalty for having a rich uncle that left you his business, no credit because you're a minority.

Equal for all. In the land of equality. What a concept.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You just articulated my confusion, as well. Why does the OP think they would be any more likely to raise taxes with the 9-9-9 plan than they currently do? Sure, taxes could be raised but taxes could be raised now. I don't know about anybody else but this would drop my taxes significantly.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Eliminate the estate tax, eh? Who is that going to help? Less than 2% of estates have to file any return at all as it is and of those only a small number end up having to pay tax. And exatcly who do you think those people are? Yup, you guessed it --- the very wealthy. There is sizeable amount of money involved but it is coming from the very large estates. So this is, as usual, a lap-dog for the elite move.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by seabag
 


You just articulated my confusion, as well. Why does the OP think they would be any more likely to raise taxes with the 9-9-9 plan than they currently do? Sure, taxes could be raised but taxes could be raised now. I don't know about anybody else but this would drop my taxes significantly.


As we agreed, there's nothing stopping the current democrat administration from doing that now. Maybe the new plan will increase the OP's taxes?? 

I'm not a "one issue voter" but I'm also not scared of the changes that Cain proposes. I just want change in the right direction. Equality and fairness in the tax code seems like good change to me. I don't see anything dangerous about Cain's plan. 

Let's try something new already!! We all know half the country pays no taxes and ultra-wealthy use loopholes to avoid taxation. You fix that with 9-9-9. That plan PLUS scraping Obamacare will stimulate growth and put Americans back to work IMO. 



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Again, it's just a new tax on top of the income tax and that's a horrible idea. If a President could just change the tax system on a whim, we would probably have a new tax system under every President. Let's look at two incomes. A person making $30,000 a year and a person making $300,000 a year. Under Cain's plan disaster strikes.

The person making $30,000 would have to pay an income tax of $2,700 and a 9% national sales tax. So if they spend $10,000 a year, that's $900. That's $3,600 they would pay in taxes on top of State and Local taxes. A person making $30,000 now pays around $5,500. This means 9-9-9 is regressive and it gets worse.

The person making $300,000 would pay around $100,000 in taxes. Under Cains plan that's reduced to $27,000 and let's say he spends $50,000 a year and pays a $4,500 national sales tax. That's a total of $31,500. That reduces his payment to .105 from .33 percent. The person making $30,000 a year will go from .15 percent to .12 percent. That's just silly.

This would hurt the Country because it's regressive. It would hurt poor people the most. If you make $300,000 a year, you love 9-9-9. You go from .33 percent to .105 percent. You would actually be paying less to the Government than the person making $30,000 a year. We don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem.

1. Go to a Fair Tax where people keep all of their money and just pay a sales tax which would be revenue neutral.
2. Cut spending
3. Stop Government from spending money for S.S.
4. Pass a law that says Government can't spend more than 70% of GDP withouth 90% of the House and Senate.

Cain's plan is a disaster waiting to happen.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Eliminate the estate tax, eh? Who is that going to help? Less than 2% of estates have to file any return at all as it is and of those only a small number end up having to pay tax. And exatcly who do you think those people are? Yup, you guessed it --- the very wealthy. There is sizeable amount of money involved but it is coming from the very large estates. So this is, as usual, a lap-dog for the elite move.


Stop hating on people who are more fortunate than you. Look, money that a person leaves to his/her heirs is money that was earned AND TAXED already. Why should the government have the authority to tax it again?? I say GET YOUR HAND OUT OF MY DAMN POCKETS ALREADY! And before you ask...NO - nobody has ever left me a penny.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 
Why should it matter what a person makes?

It's a fair tax, meaning that it is equal for all.

Unless you think people who make more should be punished??????



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

1. Go to a Fair Tax where people keep all of their money and just pay a sales tax which would be revenue neutral.
2. Cut spending
3. Stop Government from spending money for S.S.
4. Pass a law that says Government can't spend more than 70% of GDP


I could get behind the Fair Tax. Which candidate is proposing the Fair Tax though? Ron Paul? If I only have a choice between business as usual or 9-9-9 then I'd go with 9-9-9.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


A Fair Tax is equal to all and this is why they do prebates. It's revenue neutral and it's fair. Cain's is an unfair tax that actually hurts poor people. The idea shouldn't be to hurt poor folks but reduce the scope and size of Government. A lot of people depend on some of these programs. You can't just cut them off and hurt them in the process with a regressive system like 9-9-9.

I bet half of the people complaining about Government are on S.S. or if they lost their leg in an accident like my cousin did, they would apply for disability so they could at least have some dignity while they're trying to recover. So Cain's plan does harm to poor people and is regressive.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join