Herman Cain's tax plan

[Whore of Spamylon]

[ironbite]

And that tells me nothing.

[Thejebusfire]

Is it wrong that I laughed out loud at that during the movie?

[Whore of Spamylon]

Oct 13, 2011 0:02:47 GMT -5 ironbite said:

And that tells me nothing.

Exactly

[Haseen]

Oct 13, 2011 0:11:12 GMT -5 Whore of Spamylon said:

Oct 13, 2011 0:02:47 GMT -5 ironbite said:

And that tells me nothing.

Exactly

...and that's his plan in a nutshell.

[Vypernight]

He supports Fairtax. 9-9-9 is just a step towards it, at least it better be.

[the sandman]

Cain's 999 plan is asinine and Ol' Smilin' Herman knows it, too. Independent analysts have done the math on his "plan" and the numbers pretty clearly indicate that under such a tax code, the US government would not be able to afford even basic services and the poor would see a drastic and severe increase in their taxes. Hell, the 9% tax on consumer goods alone would bump up the average middle class taxpayers share. In Ohio it would increase the cost of a $15,000 car by $700. And consider the fact that Cain would extend this consumer tax to all consumer goods, including food.

So why does he advocate it? Because your average idiot on the street likes to believe that there is a simple, buzz-word solution to every problem no matter how big, and Cain is providing that. He knows he will never have to deliver on it because even if he is elected President, Congress would never in a billion years ever pass such legislation.

It's the same tactic Bushie used when he promised to end abortion. He, like Cain, just forgets to mention that the President does not have the power to make legislation, and your average schmuck in this country doesn't know that.

[tempus]

Oct 13, 2011 7:15:40 GMT -5 the sandman said:

Cain's 999 plan is asinine and Ol' Smilin' Herman knows it, too. Independent analysts have done the math on his "plan" and the numbers pretty clearly indicate that under such a tax code, the US government would not be able to afford even basic services and the poor would see a drastic and severe increase in their taxes.

And that's entirely the point. He knows exactly what it will do. So does the man who crafted it, Richard Lowrie Jr, an investment banker who formerly worked for Americans for Prosperity.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/richard-lowrie-herman-cain-tax-plan_n_1006201.html

It's intended to shift the tax burden off the wealthiest class and push it squarely onto the backs of the middle and lower class, while simultaneously starving the government of the funds needed to maintain the welfare state AND the parts of the government that the GOP has had a hate-on for for the last thirty years, like the Department of Education. IF he's nominated, IF he's elected, and IF it somehow managed to pass, it would effectively force large portions of the government to shut down, destroy the last vestiges of FDR's New Deal and what safety nets we have while eliminating taxes altogether on a large segment of the wealthiest Americans.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Vypernight]

He was focussed completely on Fairtax, which I think is a better idea since it makes everyone, rich, poor, immigrant, drug dealer, prostitute, etc. pay. According to his own page, 9-9-9 is just supposed to be a step toward it, but I personally think he should skip that step and go right to FT.

www.hermancain.com/999plan

For the record, I don't approve of any of his other ideas, but i'm hoping he's just saying weird, wacked-out crap to get the braindead right-wing vote.

[Vene]

Oct 13, 2011 9:09:00 GMT -5 Vypernight said:

He was focussed completely on Fairtax, which I think is a better idea since it makes everyone, rich, poor, immigrant, drug dealer, prostitute, etc. pay. According to his own page, 9-9-9 is just supposed to be a step toward it, but I personally think he should skip that step and go right to FT.

www.hermancain.com/999plan

For the record, I don't approve of any of his other ideas, but i'm hoping he's just saying weird, wacked-out crap to get the braindead right-wing vote.

So you think it's a good idea to make somebody who earns a whole $5000/year pay the same amount in taxes as the person who makes $5000/month as the person who makes $5000/day? Actually, under the 999 plan and even the fair tax, the person making $5000/year pays the largest percentage of their income because absolutely all of it is spent, both the individual making $5000/month and the person making $5000/day can put money aside (stocks, bonds, a savings account, 401k) someplace where it doesn't get taxed because it's not being spent on a good or service. With the low income earners, a consumption tax takes away money that would otherwise go to survival essentials, with the middle and upper classes, it taxes money that would otherwise go to luxuries.

In short, with the poor such a plan takes away money that would otherwise be used for food, rent, or clothes; with the rich it takes away money that would be spent on a toy. It's toxic and moronic.

[the sandman]

But it's an excellent idea if your intent is to create a permanent lower, servant class in thrall to a small minority of elites.

[Vypernight]

I don't understand how it hurts anyone. You get your entire paycheck, your entire Christmas bonus, your entire 401k. The rich are still buying stuff so they're still paying taxes. And the poor benefit from the Prebate which covers basics goods.

Now I'm no economist, but if I'm bringing in $25,000 year, putting aside 1/4 for savings, and someone making ten times that is putting 3/4 in saving, sure he's paying less of a %, but he's still paying a lot more than I am in dollars.

Unless the rich are borrowing stuff or buying it all used, they're still spending money. There're no tax cuts, no tax exempt status for churches (They don't get taxed on tithes, but any priest buying stuff's going to be paying).

I may be way off on this, but it seems like everyone's paying taxes, but with prebate, the poor aren't getting screwed over. Once again, I'm not an economist; I'm just going on what I've read under the document itself.

[the sandman]

the problem is that the poor spend a MUCH higher percentage of their income on consumer goods and services, and thus any kind of blind flat-tax will result in the poor paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes.

[N. De Plume]

I wasn’t aware folks making $25,000 could afford to put a quarter of it into savings.

[The_L]

I make over $30,000 a year, and I don't put anywhere NEAR a quarter of it into savings.

Or maybe he means an actual quarter, as in 25 cents?