Cain campaign: 9-9-9 would be revenue neutral

[웃 910]

What's your theory?

That the rich guys (Beck/Hannity) are brainwashing the masses - your typical $50,000 a year Fox viewer / Beck/Hannity/Rush listener. That would be crushed under a Cain tax plan (if these numbers are even remotely accurate).

They are distorted by their teachers. Whom have a clear agenda - and all have one thing in common - they are filthy rich and want to stay that way...

I'm having trouble putting the words together - do you understand what I am trying to explain?

Edited October 13, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I love when Dems get together and tell Republicans who would be the "best" candidate.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That the rich guys (Beck/Hannity) are brainwashing the masses - your typical $50,000 a year Fox viewer / Beck/Hannity/Rush listener. That would be crushed under a Cain tax plan (if these numbers are even remotely accurate).

They are distorted by their teachers. Whom have a clear agenda - and all have one thing in common - they are filthy rich and want to stay that way...

I'm having trouble putting the words together - do you understand what I am trying to explain?

No.

I like Cain and I do not even have TV and do not listen to Rush more than 30 minutes per week if a happen to catch a bit of his show driving between projects in some area where I can actually get an AM station. Rush has refused so far to endorse anyone, I DID hear that today.

I know who Hannity is but have never watched his program, nor have I watched Beck more than maybe two times and thought he was a nut.

[Danno 1,228]

No.

I like Cain and I do not even have TV and do not listen to Rush more than 30 minutes per week if a happen to catch a bit of his show driving between projects in some area where I can actually get an AM station. Rush has refused so far to endorse anyone, I DID hear that today.

I know who Hannity is but have never watched his program, nor have I watched Beck more than maybe two times and thought he was a nut.

Not sure why some are so certain everyone on the Right, gets their marching orders from the names given, I for one rarely catch more than a youtube clip once in a while, though I do catch rush... maybe an hour a week.

Even for those who do listen, I suspect the majority listen with a critical ear. Those who are in "lock step" most likely tune in because they find confirmation in what they already believed.

[^_^ 5,021]

Cain’s proposal would lead to a shift of the tax burden to individuals from corporations and investors, Edward Kleinbard, a University of Southern California law professor and former chief of staff to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, has said. Eliminating the deductibility of wages would raise the cost of labor, which businesses would pass on to workers in the form of lower pay, he said.

That, combined with no mention of the standard deduction, personal exemption or earned-income tax credit, “means a huge tax hike for the working poor,” he said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-13/cain-adviser-says-9-9-9-plan-didn-t-take-an-economist-to-create.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's what this is all about. Not a mere continuation but aggressive acceleration of the wealth re-distribution from the bottom to the top. The middle class still exists and that, my friend, is a shame. What self-respecting Banana Republic has anything even resembling a middle class?

[mawilson 2,133]

Did the CBO score this 999 plan?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s so-called 9-9-9 tax plan isn’t revolutionary and didn’t need a professor to develop it, said the suburban Cleveland investment adviser who did.

Rich Lowrie of Gates Mills, Ohio, Cain’s senior economic adviser, developed the plan based with Cain on core principles and in consultation with economists including Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, whom he calls friends.

It passed the Laffer Test.

[mawilson 2,133]

It passed the Laffer Test.

For sure - I laff every time I hear him say 9.99.

[웃 910]

His plan is laffable

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Cain Plan's Reagan-Era Roots

GOP Candidate's Tax Blueprint Grew From Consultation With Supply-Side Guru

Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan might have been called the "Optimal Tax."

The Republican presidential candidate's economic adviser, Rich Lowrie, thought the plan's broad sweep and ultra-low 9% rates made it an ideal tool to revamp the tax code and encourage growth.

Mr. Cain liked the idea, but not the name Mr Lowrie came up with.

"We can't call it that," Mr. Cain said during a cab ride through Nashville in July, according to Mr. Lowrie. Instead, the former pizza-chain executive, tapping his instinct for marketing, concluded: "We're just going to call it what it is: 9-9-9." ("What kind of nerd am I?" Mr. Lowrie says now.)

It has proved to be a significant moment for Mr. Cain's presidential aspirations. The former Godfather's Pizza chief executive has emerged as a top-tier candidate for the GOP nomination, ranking first in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. And his plan is getting a significant share of the credit—and scrutiny—for its simplicity as well as its radical prescription for the tax code.

"I think people crave the big idea when it comes to taxes," said Joseph Thorndike, a tax historian who is skeptical of the Cain plan. "People want to see the system fixed in a fundamental way….This has that kind of promise." Mr. Thorndike noted that President Reagan had a similar-sounding idea in 1980—a "10-10-10" plan, representing his intention to lower taxes by 10% for three successive years.

Mr. Cain's plan clearly has roots in the Reagan-era antitax movement. In constructing the proposal, Mr. Lowrie consulted with conservative tax icon Arthur Laffer, often viewed as the father of supply-side economics. Many conservatives continue to espouse his view that lower tax rates and a broader tax base can accelerate investment and production, and even produce greater tax revenue in certain circumstances. Liberals say Mr. Laffer's ideas led to over-optimistic assumptions about how low tax rates could go.

In fact, Messrs. Cain and Lowrie were on a trip to Nashville to get Mr. Laffer's blessing for their plan when it was given its name, according to Mr. Lowrie. He said that during their meeting, Mr. Laffer wrote an "A+" on the document and signed it as a souvenir.

Mr. Laffer confirmed the meeting and said he "could well have done something like that," but doesn't specifically recall giving the plan a grade. He said Mr. Cain's principles on taxation are "really sound," and that Mr. Cain himself is a "world-class candidate," but he also praised several other GOP candidates.

In a prepared statement Thursday, Mr. Laffer said Mr. Cain's plan "would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy."

The "9-9-9" plan would essentially scrap the existing tax code and replace it with just 9% tax rates on income, businesses and sales. Current taxes on investments would be eliminated or reduced, and payroll taxes also would be eliminated along with virtually all itemized deductions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576629433751126652.html

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And cause earthquakes and typhoons!!!!!!!!

Corporations never pay tax anyway, they only collect tax.

This is about everyone paying their fare share. I am about tired of the people who like "income tax" as we have it that seem concerned that the 9-9-9 would increase but aren't worried income tax would increase?

At least with this plan they could not paly games and say someone else is going to pay...oh yeah THAT's what they don't like.

what I do not like about the plan is that there is ANY income tax component at all. I prefer the FAIR TAX

But I talke to great things from this...

1. People are talking about it thanks to Cain

2. Someone realizes we need fundamental change before we can fix anything else.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For sure - I laff every time I hear him say 9.99.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since the "Nein, Nein, Nein" plan clearly pulls the plug on funding Medicare and Social Security, does that mean that it simply abolishes these two programs as well? Would that be 'don't dare to mentioned it' side benefit, so to speak? Or is it merely the stepping stone to starve those two beasts?

[scandal 951]

Since the "Nein, Nein, Nein" plan clearly pulls the plug on funding Medicare and Social Security, does that mean that it simply abolishes these two programs as well? Would that be 'don't dare to mentioned it' side benefit, so to speak? Or is it merely the stepping stone to starve those two beasts?

From hermancain.com website, it sure looks like he wants to kill Entitlements. "Modernize Social Programs" is apparently his euphemism for "It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way." And I love how he cites Newsweek as his data source for the point at which SS will "bottom out" (actually the projected point at which trust fund is depleted, unless we take action before then.)

Modernize Social Programs

Big government enthusiasts designed social programs to provide a financial safety net, but, in turn, dependency on the government for the most vulnerable in society became an expected entitlement. Decades since their inception, far too many Americans have shifted their expectations from government assistance to entitlement. Too many people have exchanged their freedom for a false sense of security that these programs are supposed to provide.

Unfortunately, this has not only been to the sociological detriment of America, but also to its economic detriment. Simply, ever-expanding social programs are compromising the current and future financial stability of this great country. According to a May 2009 article in Newsweek, current projections indicate that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2017 and Social Security will bottom out by 2037. These figures are advanced from 2008’s estimates, which forecasted Medicare’s bankruptcy to occur in 2019 and 2041 for Social Security. The situation will continue to worsen if we do not do something differently.

For the generations or workers who have paid into Social Security and Medicare, the federal government’s inevitable failure to pay them as they retire is undeniably stealing. These are generations who have worked and sacrificed to leave this country a better place for their children and grand children as they retire. The current behavior of an out of control federal government does little to ease their minds.

The federal government has imposed expensive and often counter-productive social and welfare programs on the states and the people. It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way. This will allow states, cities, churches, charities and businesses to offer a helping hand instead of a handout where they live. People closest to the problems are the best ones to solve the problems effectively.

We can fulfill our responsibility to our golden age citizens and future retirees by empowering them instead of restricting them.