Herman Cain's 9-0-9 Plan

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by UpstateNYUPSer, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    In response to criticism that his 9-9-9 plan places more of a burden on the poor, Cain announced his 9-0-9 plan yesterday. Taxpayers at or below the poverty line who currently pay no federal income taxes would continue to do so under this revision to his 9-9-9. In addition to this change, Cain also announced that businesses within "opportunity zones" would be able to deduct a portion of their payroll expenses, in addition to deducting purchases, from their corporate taxes.
  2. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Great news for the poor, they don't need to pay 18% more, now only 9% more :sick:
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I would assume this would change the revenue neutrality of his plan so did he announce any plans to cut spending to compensate?
  4. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    He maintains that either version would be revenue neutral.
  5. 3 done 3 to go

    3 done 3 to go In control of my own destiny

    So far i like what I am hearing about 9-0-9. I also like the flat tax by Perry. We all need to pay a little. Stop the spending. Of what we don't have
  6. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Problem is, only you, the middle class gets to pay more, the rich will get the breaks.... that's why it's revenue neutral.
  7. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Just like your pal always says, you don't get it.
    If there is a flat tax, there are no deductions for anybody (not even the rich)and we would all pay the SAME percentage. Nobody pays more of a percentage than anybody else. You'd be able to fill out you taxes on a postcard
  8. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    So, magic?
  9. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    UPSTATE, what you miss in the 9-0-9 plan is the elimination of the minimum wage. Thats his trade off. This elimination places more people into the poverty level and CAINS gift back to these people is a 0 percent income tax.

    How nice of him.

  10. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    What's the highest tax bracket for the rich there now ?
    Like a pro footballer, or hollywood star ? Over 20%, maybe 25% ?

    You lower that down to 9% - nice !
  11. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Now you are getting the plans mixed up......flat tax of Perry doesn't say 9%....that's Cain.
    Flat tax plan would scrap the current tax system, although Perry offered no details. He plans to explain his flat tax plan next week.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I'm conceding what you say in your first post as direct/factual from the Cain campaign so after reading your post again I can see where the above is true. But then this doesn't change the 999 plan to 909 because quoting you in your first post,

    so these folks never factored into the revenue neutrality in the first place. Cain is right that this would make either version revenue neutral. But more important, this doesn't change the 999 plan at all because the same people liable for income before will now still be liable for the new 9% income tax rate so the 999 plan is still fully intact. To me this appears to be a campaign gimmick ie 909 with the intent to appear to give something that was already there to begin with and to make others think they are getting something when it's not true.

    The fact is now even more apparent that the taxes of the poor will in fact go up as will many in the middle class as many even now pay a net income tax around the 9% mark so a 9% sales tax would also be a net tax increase towards a net tax rate of 18% and that is a tax increase. I heard Cain would be on Neal Boortz yesterday during the 12 to 1 pm hour and Cain flat out admitted the 999 plan was a stepping stone to the FairTax which was not new as this has been admitted before. Cain should publicly and openly state this instead of letting it dance around the shadows but then this suggests like others, he too has problems with transparency.
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Elimination of minimum wage would in fact be good as this is nothing more than a wage floor to support aggregate demand of consumer good surplus to maintain upward price support. It's a means of creating a consumer base for the bosses to purchase excess capacity which naturally would force prices down. It's the only way the big can get bigger and even stay big. Good ole' state intervention!

    Regardless of the rhetoric, the boss class will never let minimum wage go away because this wage floor helps support inflation and debt on which the boss class is able to sit in the middle and rent seek. No minimum wage and all wages begin to collapse and thus the debt economy we live in. The rich if you will would lose wealth at an accelerating rate and the gov't would collapse as wages dropped so would tax revs. Wealth and resources would then re-balance down to the middle class and to the poor. Think computers where the level of state central planning meddling is at a minimum where over time, technology prices fall and the poor have access at a much more comfortable and affordable pricing level. Take out embedded taxation and state monopoly protections like copyright and IP privileges and those pricing structures collapse even further. Minimum wage is really a sick joke thanks to the 1930's Americanized fascism of FDR that is nothing about helping the poor but in fact lining the pockets of the statist rich. End it and the level of debt couldn't be serviced, the dollar's value would drop like a rock along with public trust and overnight so many in the wealth class who are wealthy on paper would become paupers and the middle class and poor would vastly benefit as labor and creativity instead of paper would become the measure of value.

    All the talk that the right will kill minimum wage is nothing more than using fear as a political weapon which both sides do to drive voters into the slaughter hous....sorry, voting booth on election day!
  14. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member


    How does 35% fed tax, 10%state,5%city, 5% sales, 10% property,5% gax,10% alcohol,10% tabacco,5% licensing,5% hotel --next tax ---well we have taken over 100% -because we spend more than 100% let the people take out loans !!!

    P.S. With things so great in Canada why are the Canadians coming down to the U.S. in droves just to buy groceries ? In particular Milk--along the border town parking lots are maxed.
  15. TUT

    TUT Well-Known Member

    Ah there is a lot more to it then that...

    1. The rich today have accountants that will make their taxes go way down. Way down. A flat tax is bad news for tax people in general, the complex system we have now created millions of jobs. A system without complex deducts etc means "We don't need you anymore". Some owners could see that part as a benefit, they just saved additional thousands not having to have a tax expert on staff or as a consultant. So in someways that's a tax savings for them right there.

    2. Everyone is paying a new 9% federal tax on everything they buy, so if the rich are buying stuff they are now giving back more in this manner, exactly 9% more then ever.

    This simply changes how things have been done and there wouldn't be as many loopholes/breaks on most of these new flat tax plans, that is overall the point of them imo.

    For me, this will hurt me personally more then help, however I could surrender it, if it truly worked.

    The good news for those that don't like this, it won't happen. This is a systems change, the only way federal system changes will happen is when the system crashes period. He/she may someday win presidency on this issue, but it will go as another promise never lived up to. Seen it a million times.
  16. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    :wink2:Do not think that I would defend Rich companies or rich people that use presently legal deductions to avoid paying taxes.
    I personally would like ALL deductions to disappear.

    How come we seldom hear of the "poor" tax cheats ?? The small business that does cash under the table sales. The landscaper companies that pay people off the books a less than the minimum wage ??

    In many circles the word is out not to declare any more than 20,000 of income. Otherwise you lose the free health care, education, housing food stamps etc ??

    No. It is only the "Rich" that "cheat the system"-- through presently legal loopholes.
    The lazy and poor and middle class no initiative people always seem to get a "free pass"
    It is amazing when I see hard working UPS people react in this manner.

    Our economy and nation would be better off without the rich legal deductions but the otherside of the coin is just as important -if not more so !!

    At one time we would look at successful people and ask : What do I have to do to become rich ? Now many look at hard working successful people and ask: How much more can I take from them ?:sad-little:
  17. menotyou

    menotyou bella amicizia

    I get absolutely disgusted about mid-January. All the welfare paint ball pumpers slap their grimy hands together and rub with delight. Tax time!!! Earned Income credit! Who cares if they get back more than they made in the whole year. They are poor and have to feed the children, don'tcha know?!?!?!?! They get $600- $1200 a month in food stamps. There Nimo bill is paid for by HEAP. They don't pay all year. Why? HEAP will take care of it. Why work?

  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I remember hearing from one of those tapes courses.......If you want to be rich, do what the rich people do!
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Did you ever consider that the small companies doing things under the table are doing so because the Big and Rich (oh boy wait for it!) have used their access to write regulatory and tax law so as to impede competition from rising up and threatening their market dominance? Raising the entry costs for upstart market players is a form of protectionism that they enjoy thanks to K Street and State privilege.

    A non-interventionist state in the marketplace where winners and losers are in fact allowed to be winners and losers (no such thing as too big to fail) would in itself reduce cheating if that's what you want to call it. I welcome it and more of it and in fact I advocate it because it keeps more money to circulate in the private economy rather than going to Washington and then only getting passed out to the privileged business interests. If I find a business person who takes cash off the books and he/she can pass a savings off to me as well by removing a rent seeker out of the process, you damn right I'm all over it. You scream for Washington to fix the economy and they won't so man up and start fixing it yourself.
  20. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    Lets just keep it stupid and simple. A cheat is a cheat. Lazy is lazy. etc. Its not always the big bad system that stands in front of the "Professional Takers"