# Cain Tax Plan



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I would love if anyone could explain exactly how this is *supposed* to work out.

Here's an article about it:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

The idea is that *all* federal taxes would be replaced with a 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax and a 9% sales tax. Eventually those would all be replaced (I think) with something like a 30% VAT?


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

I'm assuming this would replace the tax code so most (all?) exemptions would probably go away. Would the 9% income tax exempt people making below a certain amount because my first thought is that this could be really hard on the poor.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

There is an amount that is exempt from taxes. It is usually the first 30K that someone makes, so anyone making below that would not pay the 9% income tax. Everyone would pay the 9% sales tax, which is an idea I love. It is something more easily in your control as to how much you pay in taxes; it also taxes the underground economy. It most plans, food and medicine are not taxed at 9%, but at something lower. I lvoe the idea of simplifying the tax code- talk about easy to figure out!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> There is an amount that is exempt from taxes. It is usually the first 30K that someone makes, so anyone making below that would not pay the 9% income tax. Everyone would pay the 9% sales tax, which is an idea I love. It is something more easily in your control as to how much you pay in taxes; it also taxes the underground economy. It most plans, food and medicine are not taxed at 9%, but at something lower. I lvoe the idea of simplifying the tax code- talk about easy to figure out!


That is standard, but from what I have read about his plan:

1) there are *not* deductions (so even the very poor would pay federal income tax)

2) there are *no* exemptions (all items would be taxed at point of sale)

How would it tax the underground economy (I'm not disaggreeing, I just don't understand)?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Well there is his site where he lays it out. I haven't heard him say anything about it later shifting to a 30% VAT and I've watched all the debates. Personally I'm not a fan of the plan because I don't trust the Feds enough to give them a NEW SALES TAX. I haven't heard anything about how he plans to fund social security with the payroll tax removed, but then Obama has already screwed over social security by reducing the payroll tax. The tax code is a complete mess and something needs to be done but I don't like giving the Gov yet another way to tax us. I don't buy for one minute that a national sales tax effects the underground economy.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Sorry, edited my post out for irrelevance and I had to feed my cat.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

The underground economy is the people who are only paid in cash. By having a National Sales Tax, those people would be contributing.

The payroll tax is not the same as Social Security. Yes, Obama reduced the payroll tax, i.e. income tax taken out of your check. That did not affect Social Security at all.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> The payroll tax is not the same as Social Security. Yes, Obama reduced the payroll tax, i.e. income tax taken out of your check. That did not affect Social Security at all.


It's true that the income tax and social security withholding are not the same. However, the Tax Relief Act which was signed into law last December 2010 allowed for a 2% reduction in social security withholdings (for only one year) for individuals making up to $106,800. Employers will continue to contribute the old rate and as far as I can tell, the individual payroll withholding will return to the old 6.2% in January 2012. The Social Security system itself will not be compromised by the 2% reduction, as the Act allows the "loss" to be supplemented by the general fund. It was part of a compromise package to allow the Bush tax cuts (to higher income people) to extend for an additional two years.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> The underground economy is the people who are only paid in cash. By having a National Sales Tax, those people would be contributing.
> 
> The payroll tax is not the same as Social Security. Yes, Obama reduced the payroll tax, i.e. income tax taken out of your check. That did not affect Social Security at all.


I understand the theory behind the sales tax "catching" people who are only in the underground economy now.

Yes, the payroll tax is not the same as social security, but one part of payroll taxes are what funds Social Security.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

From Cain's Site:

Quote:



> It *ends the Payroll Tax* completely - a permanent holiday!
> Zero capital gains tax
> Ends the Death Tax.
> 
> ...


So, individuals will have a flat tax of 9%. Currently (excluding the little "tax holiday" right now) SS & Medicare are taxed at a 7.65% rate.

I cannot see how this would POSSIBLY be revenue neutral.

Additionally, it says right there that the income tax would be based on GROSS income minues charitable deductions (no other deductions). So, to me, that means that everyone would be taxed on their first dollar.

I included the zero capital gains tax and zero "death tax" becasue I think those are the most sickening inclusions--- why should you be taxed lower on money you don't work for than money you do?


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

According to this article/information this doesn't look like a good deal. Well unless you are rich.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/12/8290508-tax-group-9-9-9-a-major-tax-cut-for-the-rich-substantial-increase-on-others?ocid=twitter


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

At first this sounded promising but the more I read the more it appears it benefits rich people, large businesses and maybe some small businesses although since worker's wages would not longer be exempt from taxes, I'm thinking I'd end up paying out more not less for my employees in taxes









But it's funny how it seems like it's gaining popularity...I think people must be thinking they will keep all their current deductions but even then, it's the poor who will be most hurt by something like this.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogmom327*
> 
> But it's funny how it seems like it's gaining popularity...I think people must be thinking they will keep all their current deductions but even then, it's the poor who will be most hurt by something like this.


I'm having a really hard time seeing how someone with any empathy could support this. There are so many people/families out there who are just barely making it as it is WITH the EIC, no federal sales tax, etc... There is just *no* way they could survive with less money and that's what this would ask them to do.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
> 
> I'm having a really hard time seeing how someone with any empathy could support this. There are so many people/families out there who are just barely making it as it is WITH the EIC, no federal sales tax, etc... There is just *no* way they could survive with less money and that's what this would ask them to do.


Basically that is my sense too. Taxes go up for the working poor, go down for the working (or non-working) wealthy. The only group that would benefit ultimately are the wealthy. (disclaimer: I say this as someone who is a top earner in this economy and I get a lot of flack from family members for being a 1 percenter, although at the very low end of the one percent. I would gladly pay a little more if it meant putting people back to work. I live comfortably with a lot of fall back if we should run into tough times, and I recognize the fact that a healthy economy on all levels creates a a better quality of life for me and kin, simply because I don't want my child growing up in an environment where there are huge disparities between the haves and have nots. All I seek is fairness, not socialism, as some would like to think. Fairness in that people are taxed according to their income, investments, breaks, or lack of.).


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CatsCradle*
> 
> Basically that is my sense too. Taxes go up for the working poor, go down for the working (or non-working) wealthy. The only group that would benefit ultimately are the wealthy. (disclaimer: I say this as someone who is a top earner in this economy and I get a lot of flack from family members for being a 1 percenter, although at the very low end of the one percent. I would gladly pay a little more if it meant putting people back to work. I live comfortably with a lot of fall back if we should run into tough times, and I recognize the fact that a healthy economy on all levels creates a a better quality of life for me and kin, simply because I don't want my child growing up in an environment where there are huge disparities between the haves and have nots. All I seek is fairness, not socialism, as some would like to think. Fairness in that people are taxed according to their income, investments, breaks, or lack of.).


Thank you for saying this. I feel the same way about healthcare. Without adequate, affordable healthcare we are creating an unhealthy society. I strongly disagree with those that say healthcare is NOT a right. That kind of statement blows my mind.


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

DH and I talk a lot about this. Our income is going up. We feel very lucky and possibly if things continue to go well we will eventually make it to the upper middle class (or upper class depending on COL). We don't mind paying more in taxes when we do. That's how it works. It is possible for us to start a business and do well because of the society our tax dollars fund. It makes sense we'd pay more than someone who is trying to figure out if they can buy another loaf of bread.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogmom327*
> 
> DH and I talk a lot about this. Our income is going up. We feel very lucky and possibly if things continue to go well we will eventually make it to the upper middle class (or upper class depending on COL). We don't mind paying more in taxes when we do. That's how it works. It is possible for us to start a business and do well because of the society our tax dollars fund. It makes sense we'd pay more than someone who is trying to figure out if they can buy another loaf of bread.


I agree. I was sitting on the train at 6:00 am this morning and looked up and saw the Lion King ad for the production on Broadway. I know it sounds corny but the song I remember from that play/musical is the "Circle of Life." The idea is premised on the fact that every living thing is dependent on another living thing, or things, to to survive. I think that people mistake 'quality of life' for the amount of dollars in their pockets. I disagree with that concept. I've been through several decades in my own town where tax dollars made a huge difference in quality of life: the difference between walking down a street either fearing or not fearing for your personal safety because of the availability of street lamps or a staffed local police precinct; the availability of books in my local library (which not only makes knowledge available to lower and middle income people but creates a safe haven for kids to go when their peers are choosing less desirable routes; decent roads and transportation to get people to their jobs; etc.). I could go on and on but I think you get my drift. A society that feels safe and that can operate with less adversity is a more productive society. Hungry people care only about their physical pain of hunger, not about innovation and the desire to succeed beyond the taking care of immediate physical needs.

Back to the original topic: I don't believe for a minute that the Cain tax plan is a no-brainer.

Go ahead, tax all income at the same percent. I still get my deductions and benefits simply because I'm in the top bracket and had the opportunity (and good luck) to be in the position I am today. I still win! (Snark, snark...and more snark.).


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Check this out.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941800


----------



## umsami (Dec 1, 2003)

I'm all for simplifying the tax code. I'm even OK with a flat tax...but I always thought something around 17-18%, not 9% made more sense. I do believe that one would have to give people an out on the first 40,000 or so, but I'm not sure of the exact figure.

I'm OK with a VAT or national sales tax too--but only if it goes to pay for universal health care or something along those lines. I do worry about a slippery slope however. 9% this year... and then in five years, oops we need more money...so now it's 11%....then 13%, etc. I'm not sure how that can be avoided.

I'm glad that Cain has a plan--even though I don't think it has a snowball's chance in heck of passing. I also think it would lead to more debt, not less. The thing is, the way our government is now...with all the lobbyists and corporate interests...I don't see any real reform happening regardless of who is elected. Both parties are looking out for their sponsors and donors--not the American people as a whole. The GOP more so, but the Dems have been selling out as well. I think that Pres. Obama is much more centrist than he's been portrayed--and even he can't get things done. I think we need electoral reform first. Citizens United was a stupid stupid decision.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umsami*
> 
> I'm all for simplifying the tax code. I'm even OK with a flat tax...but I always thought something around 17-18%, not 9% made more sense. I do believe that one would have to give people an out on the first 40,000 or so, but I'm not sure of the exact figure.
> 
> ...


Agreed!


----------



## Thursday Girl (Mar 26, 2004)

as someone on public assitance who doesn't always know how we will pay the bills and only is assured food for our family because of food stamps I can't fathom how this will work for our family. We have lower bills than most but still struggle. There is no way we could pay 9% of our income and be okay, it would devastate us. I don't know how we would be able to buy anything if we were getting charged 9% by the federal gov''t and 6% by the state gov't, on top of the fact that we wouldn't be able to pay our very reasonable mortgage, and utiility bills if we lost 9 % of our income.

okay I know that last sentence is redundant but it won't let me delete it for some reason, even though I can delete the stuff I am typingnow.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thursday Girl*
> 
> as someone on public assitance who doesn't always know how we will pay the bills and only is assured food for our family because of food stamps I can't fathom how this will work for our family. We have lower bills than most but still struggle. There is no way we could pay 9% of our income and be okay, it would devastate us. I don't know how we would be able to buy anything if we were getting charged 9% by the federal gov''t and 6% by the state gov't, on top of the fact that we wouldn't be able to pay our very reasonable mortgage, and utiility bills if we lost 9 % of our income.


And, of course, add an extra 9% sales tax on everything you buy.

Since low income families spend a larger percentage of their income, they would be paying the highest rate.


----------



## JollyGG (Oct 1, 2008)

I've always heard of a flat tax as a way to eliminate the loopholes that those who can afford it find and utilize. So basically even thought the top income bracket is supposed to pay 35% they often pay little to no taxes. However, with this plan having no capital gains taxes it doesn't accomplish that at all. Usually that is how the wealthy ends up paying little in taxes. Much of their income is from investments that are currently taxed at 10-20%.

I've also heard of a consumption (or sales tax) being more fair as they you pay taxes on what you spend not on what you earn. Yes wealthier individuals usually buy more expensive items and spend more in a given year. They, however, spend a smaller proportion of their income.

So while this plan follows some ideas for simplifying and making the tax code more fair it fails to accomplish the fair part when it lowers the capital gains tax to 0.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

here's a visual representation of what the 9-9-9 plan would look like, from boing boing. maybe that will help people understand what that really means?

(and can i just on a side note, say that i can't believe as many end-of-times fundamentalists etc there are, that something that is 6-6-6 upside down could fly with the voters??)

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/19/visualizing-herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-to-redistribute-wealth-from-the-poor-to-the-rich.html


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> here's a visual representation of what the 9-9-9 plan would look like, from boing boing. maybe that will help people understand what that really means?
> 
> ...


The link didn't work for me (said page not found)


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

Meh it would never work. He wants to do away with the IRS... anyone see that happening?


----------



## carmel23 (Jul 21, 2006)

So if you live in California with its almost 8 percent sales tax will also have a 9 percent federal sales tax? An almost 17 percent sales tax?!

I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if they went to universal heathcare (not health insurance) and other benefits to all of society.... not ethanol subsidies, etc! But I don't think a sales tax is the best way. Those also disproportionately effects poor people since they are paying a larger percentage of their income to this tax.


----------

