The Herman Cain 9-9-9 Plan

[billvon 2,991]

>Rip that sucker out, throw it in the shredder, and streamline the entire system.

Going from one tax to three is "streamlining" it? I think it makes it three times as complicated.

If you want to simplify the system, simplify it. Eliminate all deductions. If you want to simplify it further, go from six tax brackets to three, or two. No need to add two more taxes to "simplify" it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Scrapping the tax code and the $500 billion dollar stranglehold it has on the economy. Rip that sucker out, throw it in the shredder, and streamline the entire system.

but what to do with all the accountants, tax lawyers, and IRS henchmen then? They would dwarf the Occupy Wall Street types. And how do you keep incremental "improvements" from repeating? Or is it enough just to wipe the slate clean once a century?

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Scrapping the tax code and the $500 billion dollar stranglehold it has on the economy. Rip that sucker out, throw it in the shredder, and streamline the entire system.

but what to do with all the accountants, tax lawyers, and IRS henchmen then? They would dwarf the Occupy Wall Street types. And how do you keep incremental "improvements" from repeating? Or is it enough just to wipe the slate clean once a century?

No. They would be needed just as much as now. People will still underpay or overpay. Not all are wage earners and have to pay in April. There is no way the new tax laws are going to be loop-hole free and representation will be needed. There will also those working abroad ect. ect. and business correctly charging taxes and paying them. If anything, the IRS will have to expand due to the extra load from the National Sales Tax.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>That's exactly what the "phase one" of this plan would do.

If all it does is remove a few tax brackets and simplify the tax code, great, I'm all for it.

But from what I heard it would ADD a national sales tax. Adding a new form of tax makes a system more complex, not less.

[billvon 2,991]

>Initially, it does not. That's "phase two."

Nope. Phase 1 is adding a national income tax at 9%, then changing personal and corporate income taxes to 9 and 9% respectively. (That's why it's called the 9-9-9 plan.) Then phase 2 would be sales tax only.

And BTW he's keeping federal gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, beer taxes etc. So to calculate the new 'simple' tax you'd end up with:

(gallons + 18.4 cents federal excise tax + avg 27 cents state sales tax) * new federal sales tax * local sales tax.

I count five taxes there in the new "simplified" system for a gallon of gas.

No matter how you slice it, adding yet another tax on top of our income tax is adding complexity. Heck, we could add a whole 'nother branch of the IRS to deal with the new tax!

[quade 4]

Quote

Then I must be reading something else. There was a transition step in between with reduced tax code and simplified marginal rates.

Probably. If the 9-9-9 plan has any brilliance at all, it's that it can be easily stated and people believe they understand it. That's about it. Not that it's actually any good, but it's able to be communicated in an overly simplistic way people think they can grasp.

I guess if we were living in "SimCity" it might actually make sense, but we don't live in a overly simplified computer simulation. We live in a much more complex world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/herman-cain-999-sim-city_n_1008952.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

I read that article yesterday. Cain came out and said they picked 9-9-9 because it sounded good.

And it may not be 9-9-9. It may be 0/9/15,12,0. Or some other combination.

Do you agree the complex tax code needs to die? If yes, get behind the concept. If not, then quit bitching about loopholes and buffett any the Koch brothers and hedge fund managers.

I absolutely agree the tax code should change.

I absolutely do NOT agree Cain has the solution. Why the hell should I get behind it if I think it's no good? Simply for the sake of change? No thanks.

Have him present an actually workable plan and then maybe I'll consider it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Why the hell should I get behind it if I think it's no good? Simply for the sake of change?

ROTFLOL... I blieve you voted for our current president mainly for the sake of change....roll the dice and do it again. It certainly worked out great last time.

Note: This is a joke I have no personal knowledge of who or why Quade may or may not have vote for Obama. It's just a joke and not a personal attack.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I read that article yesterday. Cain came out and said they picked 9-9-9 because it sounded good.

And it may not be 9-9-9. It may be 0/9/15,12,0. Or some other combination.

Do you agree the complex tax code needs to die? If yes, get behind the concept. If not, then quit bitching about loopholes and buffett any the Koch brothers and hedge fund managers.

I absolutely agree the tax code should change.

I absolutely do NOT agree Cain has the solution. Why the hell should I get behind it if I think it's no good? Simply for the sake of change? No thanks.

Have him present an actually workable plan and then maybe I'll consider it.

I don't seem to recall this same level of concern for details when Obama was running or when they presented the Obamacare plan. Weren't we told that Congress would have to pass it before we could know what was in it? I seem to recall you supporting him.

[jgoose71 0]

A quick up date to the 9 9 9 plan:

Herman Cain claims that with a 20% cut to government and with out touching medicaid or Social Security, the budget will be balanced in a year.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cain-claims-he-will-balance-budget-one-year_595954.html

To actually balance the budget as is he would have to call it the 9.1-9.1-9.1 plan. I guess that just doesn't roll out as easy, so there will have to be government cuts.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Then I must be reading something else. There was a transition step in between with reduced tax code and simplified marginal rates.

clearly, because bill is NEVER wrong... just ask him.

I'm not calling him arrogant or anything. That would be a personal attack. He does kind of remind me of my wife though. It's just simpler to say "yes dear".

--
Rob

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

So you'd rather keep what we have now?

How about a loaf of bread. It cost $2 now. RiP out all the embedded junk and it can drop to $1.75. Tack on a simple tax at the register and it comes back to where it was at the beginning. You still pay $2. You still get the same loaf of bread. what do you get in end? Simplicity. Transparency. The end of "loopholes" and "deductions" and all the garbage that people say are corrupting the system.

So, which do you want? I want the simple system. I don't like extra complexity that serves no purpose.

A number of years ago Canada introduced a national "goods and services" tax (GST), which was supposed to replace all the hidden excise taxes, taxes paid every time a product passed from one "middleman" to another before reaching the store shelf, etc. The argument was that the simplified system would lower prices overall, as all those hidden taxes would be gone. In reality, retailers kept prices where they were and pocketed the difference. Also, provincial and local sales taxes are figured after the GST has been added, so you are being taxed on the tax you have to pay. Since the GST applies to services (such as a haircut, or having your air conditioner serviced), provincial and local sales taxes were added to those things too where previously they were not taxed. And, of course, a whole new bureaucracy was needed to administer the new tax, and so all the revenue from the tax for the first few years was used to build and equip new buildings and hire/train the staff to make sure the tax was being collected. The market was also severely distorted for a while, as new cars and even houses were charged 12-17% sales tax, depending on the amount of provincial and local taxes, whereas used cars or existing houses were not taxed. Not saying the US experience would be exactly the same, but I bet it wouldn't be very different.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He is not proposing a sales tax on used items, so the poor will still be able to get food tax-free.

used food?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

He is not proposing a sales tax on used items, so the poor will still be able to get food tax-free.

used food?

Ya, that's the punchline...



...but I suppose we could always make synthetic food from recycled materials.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

He is not proposing a sales tax on used items, so the poor will still be able to get food tax-free.

used food?

I suppose YOU think they should eat cake!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Austintxflight 0]

One thing that gets no traction about his plan, is he pushes to take the estate tax which is around 35% not to 9% but to 0%.

If you look at Every single republican tax plan, they always look for a way to sneak in abolishing the estate tax. Why does no one talk about this aspect of it? rich people (estates over 7 million dollars) don't need a 35% tax break, and its not even a drop to his magical 9% number, its all the way down to zero.

[billvon 2,991]

>So you'd rather keep what we have now?

No, I'd rather simplify the tax codes _without_ adding an entirely new tax.

>How about a loaf of bread. It cost $2 now. RiP out all the embedded junk and it can
>drop to $1.75. Tack on a simple tax at the register and it comes back to where it was
>at the beginning. You still pay $2

Current system: You make $3. Government takes $1 from your salary. Bread costs $2. One tax.

9-9-9 system: You make $3. Government takes $0.50 from your salary. Bread costs $2. Government charges another $0.50. Same cost for the bread - but twice the number of taxes, twice the number of forms to fill out, twice the number of government bureaucrats to administer it.

Why do you want that complexity?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Do you agree the complex tax code needs to die?

I prefer which ever system results in me paying the lowest total tax + compliance costs (buying H&R block Tax Cut Pro, paying accountants, time that I can't spend on something) in normal years and if I manage a positive liquidity event in a startup business.

The devils there are in the details.

Assuming the income tax covered all income (including 401k contributions and employer provided health insurance) with no deductions or exemptions, sales tax all spending (including health insurance and costs currently paid via flexible spending accounts), and my employers' savings on FICA/Medicare/FUTA aren't passed on to me at 9/9/9 I'd save about $2000 I might be for it. At 10/10/10 I'd spend $600 more a year and be against it.

If I were in the market to buy a house which would be subject to a $90,000 sales tax I'd be against it unless the tax came due over a reasonable interval like 20 years.

The devil is in the details.

[quade 4]

Quote

I blieve you voted for our current president mainly for the sake of change....roll the dice and do it again. It certainly worked out.

Then you're wrong.

I voted for Obama because, McCain picked Palin as a running mate which lead me to question his judgement to hold office to begin with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I blieve you voted for our current president mainly for the sake of change....roll the dice and do it again. It certainly worked out.

Then you're wrong.

I voted for Obama because, McCain picked Palin as a running mate which lead me to question his judgement to hold office to begin with.

Compared to *Biden*?

Please.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment, and OK for you.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Compared to *Biden*?

Please.

+1

But I stand corrected. But still think it's funny as hell given your stance (Quade) on most subjects.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Compared to *Biden*?
Please.

+1
But I stand corrected. But still think it's funny as hell given your stance (Quade) on most subjects.

When have I ever said change, simply for the sake of change, is a good idea?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mirage62 0]

I'm sure you haven't said that Quade. But you have taken every cheap shot you could at Bush and others. Your a rabbit basher of others, but are careful as to how you do it. You show almost no ability to even consider both sides of an argument. You support a man who's slogan was "Hope and CHANGE"....well here's hoping for a change.

Is that a PA....I don't think so but if it is ban away.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

Even National Review is trashing it:
www.nationalreview.com/articles/280306/bold-brash-and-wrong-editors

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.