October 19, 2011
— Gabriel Malor This was the first debate with Herman Cain at or near front-runner status and it showed. Right out of the gate the questions and the other candidates challenged his 9-9-9 plan.
The thing that I would encourage people to do before they engage in this knee-jerk reaction is read our analysis. It is available at hermancain.com.[...]
I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available.
Secondly, the -- the point that he makes about is a value-added tax -- I'm sorry, Representative Bachmann -- it's not a value-added tax.
[...]
And I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are knee-jerk reactions. And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least.
[...]
Once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. They're wrong about it being a value-added tax.
The value-added tax question hasn't gone away and it hasn't gone away because Cain never explains why his proposed business flat tax is not one. He just sends people to his website.
To the limited extent he tried to argue the issue, Cain gave the misleading impression that when candidates and commentators question his proposed VAT that they're talking about his retail sales tax. Here he is:
Secondly, it is not a value-added tax. If you take most of the products -- take a loaf of bread. It does have five taxes in it right now. What the 9 percent does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9 percent.So you're absolutely wrong. It's not a value-added tax.
This explanation is no explanation at all. Folks aren't calling his retail sales tax a VAT. They're calling his corporate flat tax a VAT. Here's Santorum and then Bachmann explaining why:
[Santorum:] [Y]ou have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we're talking about major increases in taxes on people.[...]
[Bachmann:] But Anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event.
And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax.
Bachmann is talking about exactly what we've been talking about here for a week. Cain's corporate tax, which is calculated by taxing gross sales less purchasing costs, investments, and deductions, is a VAT because the tax falls on only the part of the sales that is "value-added." And that compounds, as Bachmann explained, at every supplier or vendor until the final sale (where the 9% retail sales tax will get another bite of it).
And while we're talking about it, here's 9-9-9 plan architect Steve Moore having second thoughts:
I love the idea [of a 9 percent national sales tax]. As you know, Art Laffer and I helped design the plan. But IÂ’ve come to the conclusion that the American people and the voters do not want a national sales tax. HeÂ’s going to have to replace that national sales tax with a 9 percent payroll tax. And if you do that itÂ’s a total winner.
A 9 percent payroll tax on top of the proposed 9 percent wage tax? Every small business in America just cried out in terror.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:45 AM
| Comments (208)
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: dogfish at October 19, 2011 03:50 AM (fq8K1)
.........
Because they are only taxing profits.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 19, 2011 03:51 AM (UTq/I)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 19, 2011 03:51 AM (UlUS4)
Because they're not calculated by taxing only the value-added portion of gross sales. They're calculated, generally, by taxing gross income less all expenses.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 19, 2011 03:53 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: ✡phoenixgirl occupying my kitchen at October 19, 2011 03:53 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at October 19, 2011 07:48 AM (Z1WKS)
In a way they are, that's why any corporate tax is stupid. Difference is, as of now we're only paying on corporate profits.
Posted by: lowandslow at October 19, 2011 03:54 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: macintx at October 19, 2011 03:54 AM (ucs8Y)
What other candidate has bothered to craft any kind of meaningful alternative?
I suppose RuPaul has, but it's mixed in with a load of totally unpalatable bullshit.
Yes, I wish Cain would hammer more on spending, which is the nut of the problem, but the usual platitudes from the "mainstream" candidates mean nothing. Or less.
If Cain has really been as personally successful as it appears, he will have long since learned that if a plan doesn't work, you adjust/refine/replace it. No one gets to his achievement level without knowing that.
But this seems to be the year that conservatives act like a bunch of friggin' liberals, shooting each other down and wasting time on cheap shots while substance goes right out the window.
The ONLY reason I'm defending Cain is that he offers something fresh and new, which is real-world experience. Yet everyone takes pot-shots at him instead of proposing something better.
He is on my short-list, despite the grumbling from the "pundits" and the jabs from rivals who think the road to the White House is paved not with their achievements, but with the bodies of those they bested in a bunch of debates run by people who despise all conservatives.
And Osama Obama is still a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure and thus is the Main Enemy. I wish people would remember that.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 19, 2011 03:54 AM (YjjrR)
Posted by: Vic at October 19, 2011 03:55 AM (YdQQY)
Good analysis from Gabriel.
I like Herman Cain. He believes what I believe. He can articulate it in a way that differentiates him from the others, and makes them look kind of phony.
9-9-9 is horrible. But no more horrible than our current illiberal tax code. However. I am not here to defend 9-9-9, but to bury it. There is no possible way, under any circumstance, that it becomes law. There is too much power inherent in the power to tax, and to not tax, for such a simplification to happen.
Therefore I am not worried about 9-9-9. It is a mathematical artifact, not a potential law.
Posted by: Truman North, obvious racist at October 19, 2011 03:57 AM (I2LwF)
I still like Cain because he at least put something out there that is more or less tangible, even though it may be unrealistic and impossible to actually implement. Refine tune tweak!
Posted by: Hrothgar at October 19, 2011 03:57 AM (i3+c5)
Have you read my 347,588-point plan to get Americans back to work?
Posted by: Mittens! at October 19, 2011 03:57 AM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Andy at October 19, 2011 03:57 AM (z6jMn)
Posted by: lowandslow at October 19, 2011 03:58 AM (GZitp)
..........
Yeah.. kudos to Cain for at least trying. It's a bold plan.
But even the briefest look at the plan beyond the simple catchphrase of 9-9-9 shows you it's a miserable, unworkable plan. There's no tweaking.. no refining.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 19, 2011 03:58 AM (UTq/I)
Dude is the only intelligent, qualified candidate in the race.
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 03:59 AM (qNuEj)
Both Mitt Romney and Bachmann have that too.
Posted by: chemjeff at October 19, 2011 03:59 AM (s7mIC)
Posted by: macintx at October 19, 2011 03:59 AM (ucs8Y)
Every tax is a tax on employment from dollar one. That's what tax is-- an extraction of wealth from producers.
Let me contrast it with the 35% corporate tax we have now.
Posted by: Truman North, obvious racist at October 19, 2011 04:00 AM (I2LwF)
ALL corporate taxes are based on receipts minus the business' costs. That's pretty much the very definition of profits. To say otherwise is to either: a) completely dishonest, or b) wildly mistaken.
If Cain's plan is a VAT, then so is the current code and so are all the candidate's corporate tax plans.
And the attacks on Cain from some of the candidates were completely dishonest: they - especially Romney - intentionally conflated state sales taxes with a federal sales tax. He knew better than that tripe he was hustling last night. It actually made my wife extremely angry: if you have a legitimate argument to make, then make it. But all Romney, most especially, did with his rank dishonesty was to show why 75% or more of the Republican party wants anyone EXCEPT Romney as the nominee.
Posted by: Jim_B at October 19, 2011 04:00 AM (QD3//)
Posted by: Andy
..........
In theory.. in practice, the employer's share might well stay in the employer's pocket.. or pay for another new employee.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 19, 2011 04:02 AM (UTq/I)
Posted by: lowandslow at October 19, 2011 04:02 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: Andy at October 19, 2011 04:02 AM (z6jMn)
Not entirely. The payroll tax comes out no matter what. The sales tax only comes out when the consumer purchases something. Any money the consumer saves or invests would not be taxed by the sales tax.
Posted by: Iron Balls McGinty at October 19, 2011 04:04 AM (Gkhxf)
Posted by: Andy at October 19, 2011 04:05 AM (z6jMn)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at October 19, 2011 04:05 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: chemjeff at October 19, 2011 04:05 AM (s7mIC)
I think so, too. Now that Cain has opened the door to deliberative thought on alternative tax structures, I think Perry will get some traction with the idea ... he telegraphed it last night, saying we don't nine 999 or 59 points or whatever, just a tax structure that is "flatter and fairer."
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 04:06 AM (qNuEj)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 19, 2011 04:06 AM (UTq/I)
What it also looks more and more like to me is that Herman Cain doesn't understand what his old plan does or how it would work. It's a "plan" that looks more and more like a zippy campaign slogan that was presented as an economic plan, and his advisors apparentl told him all he needed to do was repeat 9-9-9 and his web site address over and over again and the lacking (and disturbing) details wouldn't matter.
I wish folks would stop projecting their idea of who they would like to vote for onto Cain and take a look at the real, painfully underqualified guy he actually seems to be. Projecting what your own idea of an "ideal president" should look and sound like is how we got the SCoaMF who is in the White House now, in case anyone has forgotten.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 04:06 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: soot at October 19, 2011 04:06 AM (8dspl)
Well, he also spams my emailbox. So Newt is relying on debates and spam.
Posted by: chemjeff at October 19, 2011 04:07 AM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ✡phoenixgirl occupying my kitchen at October 19, 2011 04:09 AM (eOXTH)
Fairtax.org
It was such a good plan. Stolen and bastardized. Its death probably means the Republic is lost since it seems we've forever redefined fair as the more your earn the bigger bite of each dollar you must hand to the leviathan.
Posted by: Scott J at October 19, 2011 04:09 AM (Ip8Ph)
Posted by: Jose at October 19, 2011 04:10 AM (WTNJJ)
Posted by: chemjeff at October 19, 2011 08:07 AM
Wait -- you mean he's no longer a daily visitor to Hannity's show? I hope whatever-her-name-is -- you know, The Newt's current wife -- can suck his toes as well as Sean did.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 19, 2011 04:11 AM (YjjrR)
as I've said Cain's 9-9-9 plan is going to sink him as quick as he was boosted by it. Cain was effective in his rise because he didn't go after other candidates, he just spoke on how he would run things - something I like about Cain. However w/ now more folks taking a more detailed look at the plan, the negatives will come out.
Perry's strong performance last night (well I thought it was strong, I woke up to talk radio guys saying he was too forceful) will take back some supporters who ran to Cain. His performance made me switch back to neutral afterall so I think it did have an effect on undecideds like me.
Romney is still ok as moderates still refuse to back Hunstman and split the vote amongst him and Romney (and btw I find Huntsman to be a bigger "RINO" then Romney). Plus Romneybots (polynikes, etc.) and squishes (Jeff B., etc) seem to be still on his side and are demanding apologies from Perry so he's still got his base sewn up.
if this doesn't start a Perry comeback nothing will.
Cain could have begun a slide back to backbencher yesterday.
Romney is fine and still on cruise control towards the nomination but he started cracking in his Godly armor last night.
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:12 AM (yAor6)
And intelligence, experience and policy analysis. I know he won't win the nomination but what a waste.
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 04:12 AM (qNuEj)
Because they're not calculated by taxing only the value-added portion of gross sales. They're calculated, generally, by taxing gross income less all expenses.
Cain's proposal taxes gross income less some expenses; it isn't a VAT. The only major differences between the current business income tax and Cain's proposed income tax is there are a lot fewer deductions, the rate is 9% instead of 15-35%, and it's a lot more transparent. The compliance costs to businesses will be lower and collection and enforcement costs to the government should be lower.
Cain's plan gets rid of payroll taxes, so depending on how you think that affects business that may be significant as well.
However, the current business tax does have the negative VAT-like properties conservatives don't like. Taxes are charged at each step along the way as each company pays its income tax, and that is passed on in the price of goods, and the taxes in the sale price of a good are hidden.
Posted by: lumpy at October 19, 2011 04:12 AM (jhSVI)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at October 19, 2011 08:05 AM (B+qrE)
And there's that, too. As troubling as his refusal (or inability) to defend his 9-9-9 this is, the fact that he seems to have not bothered to be even mildly curious about anything related to national security or geopolitics for his entire life is even more disturbing to me. Not being an expert of such things is fine, but to sound as if you have not the vaguest idea of how terrorists think and operate? After 9-11 and all the rest? This guy is so not ready for prime time.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 04:14 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at October 19, 2011 07:48 AM (Z1WKS)
they aren't taxing labor?
Posted by: willow at October 19, 2011 04:15 AM (h+qn8)
What other candidate has bothered to craft any kind of meaningful alternative?
I suppose RuPaul has, but it's mixed in with a load of totally unpalatable bullshit.
Yes, I wish Cain would hammer more on spending, which is the nut of the problem, but the usual platitudes from the "mainstream" candidates mean nothing. Or less.
If Cain has really been as personally successful as it appears, he will have long since learned that if a plan doesn't work, you adjust/refine/replace it. No one gets to his achievement level without knowing that.
But this seems to be the year that conservatives act like a bunch of friggin' liberals, shooting each other down and wasting time on cheap shots while substance goes right out the window.
The ONLY reason I'm defending Cain is that...
Sorry, you're out of time.
Posted by: Rick 'The Timekeeper' Santorum at October 19, 2011 04:17 AM (qzhcw)
I'm not onboard with the vat-ish aspect of 999.
He ought to come up with something simple and easy to understand.
For example, Cut the corporate tax rate, cut the capital gains tax, bump payroll taxes down to the next lower tax bracket, and amnesty for the trillions of dollars hiding from the taxman overseas.
Posted by: Willy at October 19, 2011 04:17 AM (gDszm)
Unfortunately, the effect still seems VAT-like to me since it occurs at each point of sale
Posted by: Hrothgar at October 19, 2011 04:18 AM (i3+c5)
the ones that make the tress's pay for the wood and the men to plane it.
it goes to the builder , where the men are paid to cut and build walls,roofs etc.
same with every proccess, the pipe the electric, etc
i still don't get where Vat isn't
Posted by: willow at October 19, 2011 04:18 AM (h+qn8)
I love the idea [of a 9 percent national sales tax]. As you know, Art Laffer and I helped design the plan.
Isn't Art Laffer like 98 years old?
Posted by: dagny at October 19, 2011 04:19 AM (qX6ua)
Posted by: Jean at October 19, 2011 04:20 AM (pawS5)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 04:20 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: Rick 'The Timekeeper' Santorum at October 19, 2011 08:17 AM (qzhcw)
Oh God Rick becomes a bigger dick with every passing debate, I want to slap his arrogant ass just as much as Paul or Huntsman
I cannot believe he mentioned winning elections in PA when he lost that seat in a landslide worse then McCain lost the 08 electoral votes there
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:20 AM (yAor6)
This seems like bad info, Jerry. Cain's sales tax is modeled on the Fair Tax, which is a retail sales tax. Can you point me to where he says businesses-to-business sales would also have a sales tax?
Posted by: lumpy at October 19, 2011 04:20 AM (jhSVI)
I live in Texas, which is so red it doesn't really matter whether I vote. So if the nominee is Romney I may as well just stay at home watch it on TV. I hate that lying peckerwood that much and don't want any part of this fiasco. At this moment in history the beat we can come up with is a dishonest Northeastern liberal. God.
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 04:21 AM (qNuEj)
Posted by: ✡phoenixgirl occupying my kitchen at October 19, 2011 04:22 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 04:22 AM (qNuEj)
what if the product went through several hands with labor and process's machinery that also were bought and tax'd?
Posted by: willow at October 19, 2011 04:22 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: lumpy at October 19, 2011 08:20 AM (jhSVI)
If business to business sales are not taxed, you have the IRS rules and regulations department defining tax law in yet another creative way. What's a business? What constitutes a true b2b sale?
Posted by: Hrothgar at October 19, 2011 04:25 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: packsoldier at October 19, 2011 04:26 AM (jMmrk)
I don't think that's right. Cain's sales tax is a retail sales tax.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 19, 2011 04:28 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:28 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Jean at October 19, 2011 04:28 AM (UIE9v)
There is a difference between commonplace and common sense and when I hear Cain talking, I hear more of the former than the latter. I noticed that there was something wrong with Cain when he was asked, if giving the feds an additional tax to raise wouldnt mean running the risk of ending up with an even higher tax burden than we got right now. And he said simply no, he didnt explain why that would not happen or argue his case, he just said no and that was it. Same in yesterdays debate. A candidate should bring more to the table than the url of his website. If thats the kind of communication skills Republicans want to settle for than we can nominate Perry just as well.
Cain is likable, but too shallow to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 19, 2011 04:28 AM (i4gLS)
Oh God Rick becomes a bigger dick with every passing debate, I want to slap his arrogant ass just as much as Paul or Huntsman
I cannot believe he mentioned winning elections in PA when he lost that seat in a landslide worse then McCain lost the 08 electoral votes there
He does that all the time like either people don't know or are going to forget that he lost that race. I heard some radio guy challege him on that and he carefully explained how that one didn't matter.
I can't quite figure out why he irritates the shit out of me, but he does. I want to pinch him. In a mean way.
Posted by: dagny at October 19, 2011 04:28 AM (qX6ua)
This is my problem in a nutshell, willow. I don't think Cain knows what Cain is saying.
Also interesting is today's tidbit that Laffer helped design this plan. Just a few days ago we were supposed to ooh and aah that Laffer supported it (and Cain implicitly) as some independent arbiter. And now it turns out he helped devise it? I call hijinks.
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 04:29 AM (qNuEj)
Posted by: Jean at October 19, 2011 04:29 AM (UIE9v)
Posted by: TimisKim at October 19, 2011 04:31 AM (C3AD4)
Repeal of withholding is an excellent place to start.
Posted by: Eric Holder of the Bag at October 19, 2011 04:31 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Jen Rubin at October 19, 2011 04:32 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 04:32 AM (l9zgN)
I think when it's all said and done, i'd be shocked if this debate didn't have an effect one way or the other. i'll be looking for post-debate polls to see.
btw when's the next debate?
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:33 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: soothsayer at October 19, 2011 04:33 AM (ZgBZU)
Posted by: SteveAR at October 19, 2011 04:33 AM (ciRLN)
Posted by: macintx at October 19, 2011 04:34 AM (ucs8Y)
Posted by: chemjeff at October 19, 2011 04:36 AM (s7mIC)
Posted by: macintx at October 19, 2011 08:34 AM (ucs8Y)
awesome I'll be at my mom's that night so I can get her to watch it. She has yet to watch any of these debates. Unfortunately she doesn't like Romney because she finds mormoism creepy. I'm not saying not liking Romney is bad as 70%+ haven't jumped on his bandwaggon but i'd rather she have beef w/ policy over her fears of mormoism
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:36 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: SurferDoc at October 19, 2011 04:37 AM (STdkO)
Posted by: sexypig at October 19, 2011 04:38 AM (Qr1T3)
Posted by: Ed Anger at October 19, 2011 04:38 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez
Nov 9.
Posted by: macintx at October 19, 2011 08:34 AM (ucs8Y)
Isn't it supposed to be all foreign policy stuff too? If so, we may finally see Herman Cain achieve critical mass and have a full blown meltdown.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 04:39 AM (haFNK)
Credibility?!? That seem best left to those cable things!
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at October 19, 2011 04:40 AM (mue7s)
Posted by: soothsayer at October 19, 2011 04:41 AM (j7IJ7)
Posted by: Ed Anger at October 19, 2011 08:38 AM (7+pP9)
my thing is that Cain acts like his election will pass the plan alone. There's still congress to get through and I gurantee you that whoever beats Obama in 2012 will face Dems who will say "no" all the way to w/e he/she proposes. They'll think the GOP saying "no" to Obama made them start a comeback and they'll do it themselves to try and gain support.
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:41 AM (yAor6)
Isn't it supposed to be all foreign policy stuff too? If so, we may finally see Herman Cain achieve critical mass and have a full blown meltdown.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 08:39 AM (haFNK)
fuck Cain reaching critical mass, watch for Paul's head to explode!
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:42 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: GOP Heterodox at October 19, 2011 04:43 AM (qNuEj)
"And I invite every American to do their own math..."
Herman my good man, do you realze what country you're runnning to be president of?
Posted by: mugwara at October 19, 2011 04:45 AM (W7ffl)
Posted by: soothsayer at October 19, 2011 04:46 AM (vzLhi)
"And I invite every American to do their own math..."
Herman my good man, do you realze what country you're runnning to be president of?
Posted by: mugwara at October 19, 2011 08:45 AM (W7ffl)
LMAO +1
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:46 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 04:46 AM (vzFJV)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 08:46 AM (vzFJV)
we're working on that
Posted by: The Koch Brothers at October 19, 2011 04:47 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at October 19, 2011 04:47 AM (WosAg)
When business pays 9% on sales, and consumers pay 9% on products with the 9% embedded tax, you don't add the two together, and come up with 18%.
The consumer is only paying 9% OF the 9%, for a total of 9.09%.
Same with the added 9% as it comes down the chain.. Only 0.09% gets added at each sale.
Clear?
Posted by: franksalterego at October 19, 2011 04:47 AM (9XykO)
Posted by: Drider at October 19, 2011 04:48 AM (HaJD9)
so where are the Romneybots, they tend to come at the end of the threads to post up websites and cut and paste stuff to back their mancrush
oh and Byron fucking York wrote that Perry finally woke up, my anlysis that last night was good for Perry starting to look more sane
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 04:49 AM (yAor6)
Also, he did say that he would trade the prisoners at Gitmo for an American.
I don't think his current level of support will last. Another few gaffes and people will remember why he was second tier just two weeks ago
Posted by: Ben at October 19, 2011 04:49 AM (wuv1c)
Newt, as he's wont to do in these things, hit the nail on the head last night.
Cain's effort to reform the tax code is ambtous and admirable, but it is a project that wll take many years and consume a lotta politcal capital. Meanwhle, the country needs a plan to immediately jumpstart the economy, and tax code reform is not it.
Posted by: mugwara at October 19, 2011 04:50 AM (W7ffl)
Fucking retarded.
Pick a real gripe. You're pissing all over your dwindling stock of credibility.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 08:32 AM (l9zgN)
What in Pete's name are you talking about? How did I redefine a VAT? I suppose you think everyone else who has criticized Cain's proposed VAT are doing the same thing, but based on . . . what? That you don't like it? That's fuckin' weak, Empire.
Aren't you the guy who accused me of not explaining why it's a VAT and then ran away when I pointed out that I had explained not once, but three times? Oh yeah, that was you.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 19, 2011 04:52 AM (XVaFd)
What other candidate has bothered to craft any kind of meaningful alternative?
Perry unveils his this week. Romney put out a 58 page plan.
I'd also debate whether 9-9-9 is a meaningful plan.
It's just catchy. It's more of a advertising success rather than a realistic tax policy.
Again, i like Cain but this plan isn't a good one.
Posted by: Ben at October 19, 2011 04:52 AM (wuv1c)
Right. It's not that different from the corporate income tax. Looks like some things wouldn't be deductible that currently are.
Posted by: slatz at October 19, 2011 04:55 AM (mE0Rl)
Posted by: JCELEPHANT at October 19, 2011 04:56 AM (TYm2g)
The consumer is only paying 9% OF the 9%, for a total of 9.09%.
Same with the added 9% as it comes down the chain.. Only 0.09% gets added at each sale.
Clear?
Posted by: franksalterego at October 19, 2011 08:47 AM (9XykO)
More precisely, 0.092 = 0.0081, so the consumer paying 9% plus 9% of 9% pays 9.081%.Posted by: Ed Anger at October 19, 2011 05:00 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet doesn't have a clue who to support. at October 19, 2011 05:01 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 08:39 AM (haFNK)
fuck Cain reaching critical mass, watch for Paul's head to explode!
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 08:42 AM (yAor6)
I sure wouldn't want to be part of the venue clean up crew after this one then. :-)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 19, 2011 05:03 AM (haFNK)
Do you see what I mean. You can't even talk to these people. Nobody is calling his his retail sales tax a VAT. They're talking about his corporate tax. This fellow does the exact same, useless thing that Cain did in the debate: "My retail sales tax isn't a VAT. Go to my website analysis."
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 19, 2011 05:04 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 05:06 AM (XE2Oo)
Did anyone think for a moment that Perry was going to punch Romney in the mouth? I have seen less aggressive body language start a ballroom brawl.
and Romney deserves it, that SS crap he was flinging is the stuff that costs the party elections. The rest of this is inside baseball to the general electorate. Romney went all in to stop Perry's momentum and it will come back in the general.
Posted by: Jean at October 19, 2011 05:06 AM (WkuV6)
Yes, sort of...
It depends on how many times the raw material goes from business to business to become the final (consumer) product.
Posted by: franksalterego at October 19, 2011 05:06 AM (9XykO)
i suppose i would have been happier if i would have seen the same amount of fervor discussing fast and furious or pay to play schemes.
Posted by: willow at October 19, 2011 05:08 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Jean at October 19, 2011 05:08 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Andy at October 19, 2011 05:11 AM (yxtW6)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 19, 2011 05:12 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 05:13 AM (XE2Oo)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 05:15 AM (XE2Oo)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet doesn't have a clue who to support. at October 19, 2011 05:16 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 05:17 AM (yAor6)
Well,the clip i saw this am on UT news showed Mitt laying hands on Rick, Good thing he's not an nfl coach.
Posted by: Y-not of the booboo finger at October 19, 2011 05:18 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not of the booboo finger at October 19, 2011 09:18 AM (5H6zj)
THREAD WINNER
Posted by: Back To Neutral AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 19, 2011 05:19 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Andy at October 19, 2011 05:20 AM (yxtW6)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet doesn't have a clue who to support. at October 19, 2011 05:21 AM (ZDUD4)
I think, the only fair tax would be, all tax on the consumer, with scalable deductions for certain needed products, and eliminate the income tax.
But, we also need strict limits on Gov't spending, tied to economic conditions.. End the ratchet-up effect.
Posted by: franksalterego at October 19, 2011 05:24 AM (9XykO)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet doesn't have a clue who to support. at October 19, 2011 05:27 AM (ZDUD4)
It might be helpful if people forget about the minutia and focus on the big picture.
A major change in tax policy is needed to give the U.S. a competitive advantage in the world marketplace. The current system discourages business and individuals from investing here and avoidance/compliance make everything too complicated and expensive.
CainÂ’s 9-9-9 doesnÂ’t solve anything, as he includes everything that is wrong with the existing system while adding another component that doesnÂ’t fully tap the targeted revenue and leaves the compliance costs intact.
Only the Fair Tax plan fundamentally changes the dynamics of the economy to provide an environment for sustained growth. Some say it would be impossible to pass the plan in congress, but as the economy continues to falter, people are searching for the “magic bullet” that provides the radical change the country needs to get back on track.
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 05:28 AM (qeYI9)
All taxes are already paid by the consumer. Even if Cain's plan is a VAT, the question is whether it's a better approach than what we have now. I keep hearing that America has the highest corporate tax rate among developed countries. Would 9% be lower? Would Cain's tax lead to situations where corporations like GE can pay ZERO tax? Seems like a flat tax would reduce the opportunity for cronyism in the tax code that we have now.
One additional option would be to stipulate that the rates associated with each component of the 9-9-9 would have to vary together, i.e. they would all have to go up or down at the same time, so you would never get a 9-20-9 situation. That would make it harder to raise the rates on just one group, and you would have three separate but overlapping groups interested in every rate change.
Posted by: OCBill at October 19, 2011 05:39 AM (MiSre)
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 05:40 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 19, 2011 05:40 AM (0yt4x)
>> VAT taxes the difference on the amount of premium (value) charged for a product.
That is the invoice-based collection method.
Cain's uses an accounts-based collection method. Japan's VAT uses the same method, they label it a Consumption Tax.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 19, 2011 05:45 AM (b3mf5)
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 05:50 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Andy at October 19, 2011 05:52 AM (yxtW6)
Some say it would be impossible to pass the plan in congress, but as the economy continues to falter, people are searching for the “magic bullet” that provides the radical change the country needs to get back on track.
Yes, they are, and that's the problem! There isn't one. Fair tax isn't a magic bullet that 'gets our country back on track' (if that wasn't an empty platitude I don't know what it is).
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 05:56 AM (XxXUI)
>> So, is it possible under Cain's plan to operate at a loss and still owe corporate taxes?
Yes
That's going to bankrupt people.
That's going to be an issue, when weak companies that aren't profitting are being bankrupted by taxes despite not having made any money.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 05:57 AM (XxXUI)
I don't know what the eventual tax rate would be, but whatever it was could be seen by the consumer.
This would discourage spending and encourage saving and investment.
Everything THIS gov't is doing is, just the opposite.. They encourage spending so they can collect enough taxes to satisfy their appetite for their own spending.
They've got interest rates clamped down so low, you're not encouraged to save or invest.
They want you buried in debt, just as they are.
Posted by: franksalterego at October 19, 2011 06:00 AM (9XykO)
The fact that you had to rebrand a national sales tax to a "Fair Tax" is evident that it isn't going to sell. Sort of like naming a commie country the "People's Democratic Republic of San Fransico".
Heh.
It's occured to me before. The flat tax is called the flat tax cuz, get this - it's a flat tax. 10-20%, flat. It's descriptive. And 'flat' doesn't have any positive connotations anyway, except maybe in taxes.
Fair tax? Sounds like something a democrat thought up. I know it's not, but it's a little cheap and demagogous of a name. Why not just as well call it the "Choice Tax".
It's not a substantive criticism, it's just the damn name. But the name is kinda cheap and taudry.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 06:04 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: ConsensusScienceIsBunk at October 19, 2011 06:05 AM (dhNwe)
The beauty of a pure consumption tax is, the only tax collector is the retailer.
That's bullshit on a stick dude.
They may be the ones collecting it (via mandate, for uncie Sam, without being compensated), but whether it's the IRS or the FBI or the ATF or the notorious fucking BIG you still need all the enforcement you've ever had because no tax is easier to evade than a sales tax.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 06:08 AM (XxXUI)
Repeal the income tax and we'll talk.
Herman Cain's 9-9-9 approach is not the way to get a fair tax.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 06:10 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Recluse spider at October 19, 2011 06:11 AM (eScuN)
Entropy,
The Fair Tax is as close to a magic bullet as anything. It changes the whole dynamic of where capital wants to be and where manufacturing is cost effective. It lowers the prices on exports, it raises the prices on imports without tariffs and makes U.S. produced goods competitive around the world.
For individuals, it eliminates all compliance costs, immediately gives everyone the full value of their labor, raises the value of existing homes and vehicles and provides the means for people to adjust their tax contribution based on their decisions on what to buy and when. As the only truly transparent tax, any attempt to raise it will meet with the full fury of a united populous.
By tapping non-taxpaying sources, the burden on the general public will be lowered. Compliance would be much easier to monitor since only retail outlets would be in the loop, as opposed to 130 million households.
Magic never looked so good.
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 06:22 AM (qeYI9)
I just finished my taxes for 2010; if Cain's plan was in effect, I'd go from showing a loss of $5000 on my business and, with my wife's self-employment income, owing $2700, to owing over $9000--and that's before I get to pay for the privilege of buying food under his plan and doesn't include the income tax portion either.
Yeah, I've done the math Cain--and your plan sucks donkey balls.
Fuck you!
You see Cain, a lot of small businesses and the self-employed are set up as a corporation or an LLC--your plan taxes them 3 fucking times!!
Again: Fuck you!
Your plan will destroy--absolutely destroy--the small businessman and the self-employed.
Posted by: Jimmuy at October 19, 2011 06:23 AM (hROVJ)
Posted by: cherry pi at October 19, 2011 06:24 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: A.G. at October 19, 2011 06:27 AM (gh7Et)
“…no tax is easier to evade than a sales tax.”
A simple reward program that gives whoever turns in a tax cheat 20% of the calculated yearÂ’s worth of tax would solve the problem before it even started.
As a small retailer, are you going to sell something to your brother-in-law without the sales tax knowing that the first time you piss him off he will turn you in?
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 06:29 AM (qeYI9)
A simple reward program that gives whoever turns in a tax cheat 20% of the calculated yearÂ’s worth of tax would solve the problem before it even started.
Oh fucking god no.
Look, no it will not. That's what you think. Why don't you just offer a reward for drug dealers?
But thanks for trying to turn the whole damn country into a bunch of amateur reveneurs and snitches, looking to profit by nailing their neighbor.
Opposed with every fiber of my being.
The fact that the sales tax is easily dodged is about the one thing it has going for it with me. But it's still an issue, because if too many people do it instead of just me (quite liable), government will obviously have to do something.Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 06:33 AM (XxXUI)
As a small retailer, are you going to sell something to your brother-in-law without the sales tax knowing that the first time you piss him off he will turn you in?
Again, perhaps you're not familiar with the vast, existing underground economy.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 06:34 AM (XxXUI)
Entropy,
There is already a program in place that provides rewards for turning in tax cheats. The problem with it is, business and individual tax returns are private and only “insiders” have an opportunity to see them and know what is a lie.
If some business wants to gain an advantage by not charging the sales tax or wants to increase profits by charging the tax and then not remitting it to the government, the simple fact that there are so fewer payers to monitor than before would give the IRS a big advantage. Simple algorithms monitoring tax payments would show differences in similar businesses and trigger audits.
The bulk of retail sales are conducted by large corporations anyway. Do you think McDonaldÂ’s is going to cheat?
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 06:44 AM (qeYI9)
Another inflated marshmellow original post intended to downgrade anyone except Gabriel's chosen one.
I must be the only true conservative left who actually dislikes a progressive tax system and wishes for a national consumption tax. It is amazing how liberal the conservatives can get when their favorite technocrats are in danger of being voted down.
Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2011 06:48 AM (gUGI6)
Calm down now. Businesses already file monthly sales tax returns. They will now have a one page Federal sales tax form monthly. That's it. No more income tax.
Posted by: cherry pi at October 19, 2011 06:48 AM (OhYCU)
CainÂ’s 9-9-9 tax plan is not the way we should overhaul the tax code. The plan would lower overall tax rates for the wealthy and raise rates on the poor and middle class. It would add another revenue stream for the government and worst of all it is only one phase of a multistage overhaul of the tax code. http://eng.am/oA2Vi1
What America really needs is the type tax code that both liberal and conservative politicians have advocated for. This new system would eliminate most, if not all tax breaks (and institute a standard deduction for living expenses), reduce the number of tax brackets, and lower the income tax rate.
With the tax code designed this way the government will be able to raise revenue (http://eng.am/nz0KaJ) and decrease spending (http://eng.am/pxo5XL) over time which will both help economic growth. IsnÂ’t that the type of tax code we all want?
Posted by: David Engage America at October 19, 2011 06:48 AM (17lqV)
Too much to believe: lying sack o' shit is the most likely answer.
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at October 19, 2011 06:49 AM (mue7s)
Mallamutt,
As far as private individuals go, the IRS would cease to exist in their world.
YouÂ’re pissed off because the name is the Fair Tax Plan? Do you believe the authors are trying to hide the fact that it is a sales tax?
Advocates of the Fair Tax believe the cost of goods would be reduced because it eliminates all the compliance costs through the manufacturing cycle up until the retailer. It eliminates the compliance costs on employees. It makes the U.S. the primary tax haven for the world, which would bring in capital and reduce the cost of borrowing.
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 06:49 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 09:50 AM (XxXUI)
Right. So let's entertain the notion of nominating a guy whose cornerstone of his campaign is a plan everyone--even he--knows won't ever, ever, ever pass. How the hell is that a good candidate? Always defending the "that windmill really is a dragon!" assertion he's tossed out there?
Even if you go the "but it's changing the debate" route. That's even stupider. Yes, yes, by all means let us tether the whole of the GOP to the notion that we like to toss out ideas that are stupid as hell and will never pass but we'll push 'em anyway, i.e. we are not a serious party. That is the only result: Not some lightbulb moment for the masses.
Posted by: Jimmuy at October 19, 2011 06:51 AM (hROVJ)
Posted by: naturalfake at October 19, 2011 06:51 AM (jkSbV)
Or he's a Democrat... (wait what?)
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at October 19, 2011 06:54 AM (mue7s)
Debating 9-9-9 details is like using a laser pointer on a box of kittens.
As EoJ said upthread, it's a stupid fucking plan.
Posted by: Count de Monet at October 19, 2011 06:56 AM (4q5tP)
like using a laser pointer on a box of kittens.
I don't know, that sounds a lot funner, and less byzantine.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:01 AM (XxXUI)
That's actually MY tax reform plan.
A laser pointer, a box of kittens, a shoebox full of drugs and a Chilean model.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:02 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:04 AM (XxXUI)
Right. So let's entertain the notion of nominating a guy whose cornerstone of his campaign is a plan everyone--even he--knows won't ever, ever, ever pass.
Well unless you like Perry, that sucks, because that's who we're going with.
Romney is death. The dude will split the party.
The cornerstone of the Romney campaign is that Romney can campaign for years and years and years and harldly say anything of substance of at all.
So he won't embarass you when he loses to Bambi. He'll lose all classy like, just like McCain.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:08 AM (XxXUI)
"This explanation is no explanation at all. Folks aren't calling his retail sales tax a VAT. They're calling his corporate flat tax a VAT."
What The F? Is everyone stupid? There's already a corporate tax, and it's like 38% at the highest level. If Cain's flat 9% tax is the same as a VAT, what the hell is 38%?
It's obvious that these idiots are confusing Cain's sales tax with a VAT. Good grief.
Posted by: RokShox at October 19, 2011 07:12 AM (pcly4)
I must be the only true conservative left who actually dislikes a progressive tax system and wishes for a national consumption tax. It is amazing how liberal the conservatives can get when their favorite technocrats are in danger of being voted down.
you must, as some point, come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who really really like Cain, still don't like this goddamn policy plan of his (that he came up with just before running for POTUS as a longshot and needed to get attention).
NOT all 9-9-9 opposition comes from squishes and romneybots.
It is a mistake to make that assumption.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:14 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: JS at October 19, 2011 07:15 AM (t3ugZ)
HOW he does that now without betraying himself, I don't know.
A lot of his supporters are touting that the details really don't matter, the important thing is that he is raising the issues and putting real radical tax reform on the table.
OK. He needs to segue away from this 9-9-9 stuff and mix in some 'we need to have a national debate' and 'ideas to start a meaningful discussion' type talk, et al, so he walk that back a bit into more open ended reform options.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:17 AM (XxXUI)
Talk about the mother ship of shit floating the "real" messiah. Newt pales Clinton's administration by poll numbers. And it's a poor effort to play social conservative with the 2:4 issue of abortion reliant upon poll number support to functionally cya on personal indiscretions of his own.
Executive Orders On the First Day
Newt has pledged to issue a series of Executive Orders to create jobs and help undo the damage of the Obama administration on the first day of his administration. To harness the wisdom and knowledge of the American people, Newt is now collecting ideas for executive orders that he would sign on the first day.
Learn More :
The first four Executive Orders President Newt Gingrich will sign areÂ…
1. Eliminate the thirty-nine White House "Czar" positions created during the current administration. The president does not have the authority to appoint bureaucrats to power who are not accountable to the Congress.
** 2. "Mexico City Policy" of Respect for Life. Reauthorize President Ronald Reagan’s policy – also known as the "Mexico City Policy"— to stop tax payer dollars from being used to fund or promote abortions in foreign countries.
** 3. Restore conscience clause protections for Healthcare Workers. No American working in a medical environment should be forced to perform any procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable based on religious teaching. This protection should include, but not be limited to abortion. Existing conscience clause protections need to be strengthened.
* 4. Respect Each Sovereign NationÂ’s Choice of its Capital. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom [see UN resolution] may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem [1980] as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)
More based on user submissions coming soon.
Submit Your Ideas For Changing Washington on Day One of a Newt Gingrich Presidency
---
* Why build ANOTHER US embassy after a country relocates its originally designated capital? Tel Aviv was Israel's initial capital in 1948. Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 by the Jewish Community of Jaffa, so has no conflicting population claim to power. It is Israel's economic center. Tel Aviv may provide better security for a Middle East US Embassy in Israel than Jerusalem. But in the making of this as his platform plank, deceitfully, Newt would have us believe that America snubbed Israel. "The subsequent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice expressed the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation in and around East Jerusalem. Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan or Herzliya following the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of Costa Rica and El Salvador in August 2006, no country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem, although Paraguay and Bolivia have theirs in nearby Jerusalem suburb Mevasseret Zion."--wiki
** So Newt is relying on debates and spam sperm.
Posted by: didn't take long at October 19, 2011 07:19 AM (lpWVn)
What The F? Is everyone stupid? There's already a corporate tax, and it's like 38% at the highest level. If Cain's flat 9% tax is the same as a VAT, what the hell is 38%?
It's obvious that these idiots are confusing Cain's sales tax with a VAT. Good grief.
You should brush up a bit before labeling everyone idiots.
Cain's "corporate tax" is evidently something quite different from what we currently call the "corporate tax". For one thing, apparently, it's not a tax on profit.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:19 AM (XxXUI)
ItÂ’s becoming more and more clear that Cain just isnÂ’t ready for prime time.
Perry canÂ’t find his ass in a debate with both hands. On top of that, he comes off with the stench of desperation, reaching for something that will put him back in the running. No sale.
We can only hope that this fragmentation continues on so that the ultimate candidate is brokered at the convention.
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 07:23 AM (qeYI9)
I still love idiots, however.
Posted by: cherry pi at October 19, 2011 07:23 AM (OhYCU)
But that doesn't really address it, does it?
People have serious qualms about such a radical plan, they can't just be all deflected away with dismissals.
Posted by: Entropy at October 19, 2011 07:26 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Aurvant at October 19, 2011 07:36 AM (oS5UY)
Do you presume to criticize the great Oz? You ungrateful creatures. Consider yourselves lucky. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! ...a humbug...a very bad man.
Yesterday a comment posted the link to Cain's 2010 editorial castigating a federal sales tax.
On its Board, Cain exploited the fraud of the Federal Reserve, learning the tricks of the trade from the master crony capitalist Greenspan. Cain supported TARP. Cain would dismiss Bernanke only to reinstate another Greenspan. Don't expect anything he proposes to function contrary to feeding the status quo elitist corruption. Of course his financial backers front a man made good by living the American Dream through hard work. No logical person would deny Cain respect for his professional achievements. But on AGENDA, don't mix apples with oranges. For Cain, "fiscal conservatism" amounts to raising revenue (more/new taxes) to meet bloated federal spending, digging America a deeper economic grave.
Posted by: 999% Cain at October 19, 2011 07:37 AM (lpWVn)
Attack the plan honestly. There's plenty to attack. It's dead.
The 'new sales tax' angle is enough for the primary. And the dishonest 'taxes the poor' angle will be enough in the general.
Posted by: cherry pi at October 19, 2011 07:39 AM (OhYCU)
Ever changing revisionism, making whatever promises that buy votes. No. The more he changes, the more Mitt stays the same. Liberal elitist front. Assbackwards conservative fraud.
Posted by: 999% Cain at October 19, 2011 07:41 AM (lpWVn)
Herman Cain eliminates the 35% corporate tax plus the 15.3% payroll tax (a direct tax on labor) and replaces them with a 9% corporate tax.
Michele Bachmann called Cain's 9% corporate tax a VAT, because it taxes labor (actually treats labor the same as capital, but for fun we'll grant her the point).
So she has a problem with a 9% tax on labor--it's a VAT, it's going to destroy businesses--yet, she's OK with the current 15.3% tax on labor??
By failing to mention the current 15.3% labor tax when attacking Cain's 9% labor tax, she was delibertatly trying to smear Cain's plan. A lie of omission is still a lie. IMHO, Bachmann crossed the line.
Posted by: Nerds4Cain at October 19, 2011 07:44 AM (qLkWg)
Cain's 9% Business Flat Tax is based on:
"Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports."
So wages paid are not deductible. But employers save the ~8% they were paying on wages in payroll taxes, so that's a wash.
Also, purchases from businesses are only deductible if they are from US based companies (neglecting net exports for a momment). That seems like a nice incentive to buy US.
What else is included in Cain's taxable income that is excluded under the current tax regime? Cost of sales? Meals&Incidentals? Those are all business purchases and would be excluded.
Posted by: RokShox at October 19, 2011 07:49 AM (pcly4)
Posted by: cherry pi at October 19, 2011 07:50 AM (OhYCU)
Nerds4Cain,
I'll give Bachmann the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "trust" on who knows tax law best from the candidate panel.
I understand this much, though. Labor/income-tax is NOT the VAT that Bachmann criticized.
She's critical of the 9% sales tax on new purchases. "Labor" wages aside, it's the 9% sales tax per stage of manufactured goods produced that the Cain VAT injures during his projected economic recovery. The VAT inflated costs imposed on US manufactured goods shoots the manufacturing industry in the head.
Posted by: 999% Cain at October 19, 2011 07:55 AM (lpWVn)
999%, either idiot or liar. Which?
Again, there's plenty not to like about 999, so why lie?
Posted by: cherry pi at October 19, 2011 08:02 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Steve Lockridge at October 19, 2011 08:11 AM (+ds8F)
Bachmann as President: “American Jobs, Right Now” Blueprint for Economic Prosperity and Job Creation
REPATRIATION. More than 1.2 trillion United States dollars could be brought back to America in days as an immediate "stimulus" if the government would zero out the tax rate on that money until December 31, and then permanently keep it here in the U.S. if taxed at a rate of 5 percent. ...
CUT SPENDING AND GOVERNMENT. Phase out quasi-governmental enterprises, such as Fannie and Freddie, and eliminate duplicative government programs and costs. Decrease government salaries to bring them in line with their private sector counterparts, and we must decrease the number of government employees.
REPEAL OBAMACARE.
CUT TAXES. Reduce the number of tax brackets, repeal taxes outlined in Obamacare, fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, and eliminate the Death Tax. Make the corporate tax code simpler and fairer, and allow U.S. companies that generate earnings overseas to bring back those profits to invest stateside in American jobs and growth.
REPEAL THE JOBS AND HOUSING DESTRUCTION ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS DODD-FRANK.
LEGALIZE AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AND AMERICA'S NATURAL RESOURCES.
REPEAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS.
INCREASE EXPORTS (vs. Obama Labor Union favoritism)
UNLEASH AMERICAN INVESTMENT. We must do whatever it takes to restore our ability to manufacture here in the U.S.
PAVE A PATHWAY FOR INNOVATION. (beware Bachmann using government intervention here rather than government hands off policy)
ENFORCE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS.
Posted by: Why Michele? at October 19, 2011 08:13 AM (lpWVn)
I took a family of 4 making 50,000 per year, and ran them through this year's TurboTax software. In a normal year their total tax burden is $4,591 ($766 income tax + normal payroll taxes of 7.65%). This year their income tax would actually have been -$34 (there is some credit called "making work pay" for $800), and their payroll taxes would have been $1,000 less due to the temporary reduction in rates.
Under Cain's plan, their tax burden would increase to around $6,300 ($4,500 in income tax plus 9% on approximately $20,000 in new purchases. For this year, that's an increase of $3,700, and for a "normal" year it's an increase of $1,700. For those of you who will say that they can just buy used items, I will point out that utilities, gasoline, food probably account for half of that $20K.
My guess is that it's worse for even lower income earners, because their income tax and payroll tax burdens will by definition be even less, but the amount spent on new purchases will remain relatively stable.
For retired seniors at this income level, the current income tax burden would be higher (no child tax credits), but the payroll tax would be non-existent, so the net effect of 999 would be about the same, i.e. a substantial increase for earners at this level.
So it seems to me that the point is not dishonest, but rather realistic. Which makes it an electoral loser. And Cain owns it.
Posted by: TH at October 19, 2011 08:30 AM (T8AL6)
"So, if Cain's plan was implemented in 2010, you would see an increase in wage earner's tax responsibility of 3.65%"
IF they spent all their money on new taxable goods.
But what incentive does a sales tax provide? An incentive to SAVE money for retirement or for investment in our economy (the returns from which are taxed at 9% instead of the current and soon-to-be-raised capital gains tax rate of 15%).
Posted by: RokShox at October 19, 2011 08:31 AM (pcly4)
Arthur B. Laffer, (71, for those who asked), in the WSJ:
<em>Still, a number of my fellow economists don't like the retail sales component of the 9-9-9 plan. They argue that, once in place, the retail rate could be raised to the moon. They are correct, but what they miss is that any tax could be instituted in the future at a higher rate. If I could figure a way to stop future Congresses from ever raising taxes I'd do it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Until then, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.</em>
Cain has us talking about reforming the tax code. That's a good thing. But by all means shoot him for it. Egads, republicans are the stupid party.
Let's see, Gabriel Malor or Art Laffer? Um, Laffer:
<em>
This is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support. I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.</em>
Posted by: Carmelita at October 19, 2011 08:32 AM (Y/2U4)
Posted by: TH at October 19, 2011 08:36 AM (T8AL6)
Posted by: TH at October 19, 2011 08:43 AM (T8AL6)
http://pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf
Posted by: TobyTucker at October 19, 2011 08:52 AM (UKW2o)
You can't compare payroll and sales taxes, precisely because people do not spend 100% of their income on items that would be covered by the sales tax. The 3.65% number, however, does exactly match the difference in payroll tax vs. income tax. The sales tax on purchases is therefore an add-on above and beyond the additional 3.65% identified by Mallamutt.
Posted by: TH at October 19, 2011 08:56 AM (T8AL6)
here's a good example:
1. product is sold for $10 with $1 of embedded taxes paid by the customer and $1 of profit made by the producer
2. embedded tax rate increases 50%
3. product is priced at $10.50
4. product is placed on sale after sitting in inventory for weeks and sold for $10
who paid the increased taxes?
Posted by: matt at October 19, 2011 09:28 AM (nxTmu)
If you walked in to a Godfather's Pizza and wanted the kid behind the counter to tell you about the pizzas they sell and he says " Uh... go to the website..."
you'd be thinking what exactly after you walk out? I don't think he realizes HE'S the salesman for his ideas.
I shudder to think what Obama would do to him in a debate. Calling Adm. Stockdale.....
Posted by: jwillmoney at October 19, 2011 10:03 AM (fOFCE)
Matt,
All taxes are paid by the consumer. There is no special pot of money available to corporations other than what they receive from end users. Whether a tax is charged at the end or priced into the product, the only people who pay is the consumer.
Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2011 10:35 AM (qeYI9)
#205...there is NO viable candidate with a plan to get rid of the income tax. The only viable candidate who wishes to change the current tax system is Cain. It just so happens that Cain's plan is the only one that could possible get through congress with some adjustments.
The democrats at this point in time will not agree to a flat or fair tax on consumption only. Any candidate who says they are better than Cain because of that should leave the stage because they don't have a viable plan and are only talking it up to try to get votes.
Posted by: doug at October 19, 2011 10:53 AM (gUGI6)
Posted by: steevy at October 19, 2011 01:51 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: West by West ePub at October 19, 2011 04:28 PM (dePAA)
Posted by: Double Dexter iBooks at October 19, 2011 05:10 PM (mRjho)
Posted by: The Lady of the Rivers AudioBook at October 19, 2011 05:54 PM (e+ZGA)
Posted by: The Rare Find ePub at October 19, 2011 07:23 PM (RlX/u)
Gabriel Malor: Do you see what I mean. You can't even talk to these people. Nobody is calling his his retail sales tax a VAT. They're talking about his corporate tax.
Actually, Chi-Town Jerry and others in this very thread have been calling his sales tax a VAT, so it's relevant here.
Posted by: lumpy at October 19, 2011 07:31 PM (AsLL1)
Posted by: charings at October 21, 2011 12:51 AM (vZ5T/)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2834 seconds, 336 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at October 19, 2011 03:48 AM (Z1WKS)