Republican Presidential Candidates

[Orenthal]

The way I see it if you forget state and local withholdings I believe I'm over 18% when you combine federal and fica. Any money I save (which is why the rebate is important) is only hit at 9%, it incentivizes saving. Plus employers will no longer be on the hook for the other half of FICA. That makes hiring new people cheaper.

IMO, it hurts job creation less then the current code.

Possible side effect is a run up in the stock market due to lack of cap gains. I'd hate to see that bubble busted when/if they changed the cap gains dynamic.

[e0y2e3]

Nate Silver doing his 538 thing: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... n-is-able/

[peeker643]

... but how can we make final judgements until they are fully presented.

Oh!!! I know this!! By pretending they were proposed by the political party you don't support?

Oh...shit... that was rhetorical, wasn't it?

[Orenthal]

... but how can we make final judgements until they are fully presented.

Oh!!! I know this!! By pretending they were proposed by the political party you don't support?

Oh...shit... that was rhetorical, wasn't it?

I'm still thinking how I can attribute 999 to Obama. All I have so far is he's also black.

[Orenthal]

http://bredred.com/poll-cain-43-obama-41/

I'm still racist, YES!

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Michele Bachmann basically called Herman Cain's 9/9/9 the 6/6/6 plan. Once again proving she is a religitard moron.

[danwismar]

NR editorializes against the 9-9-9 Plan - "Bold, Brash and Wrong"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ng-editors

[Orenthal]

Michele Bachmann basically called Herman Cain's 9/9/9 the 6/6/6 plan. Once again proving she is a religitard moron.

"The devil is in the details." Saddest part is her body language betrayed how eager she was to get that out. She thought it very clever. Best part, she said something other then she has 345 foster kids.

[Orenthal]

NR editorializes against the 9-9-9 Plan - "Bold, Brash and Wrong"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ng-editors

Damn Republican establishment can't stop raining on Cain. His plan and his canadicy is being vetted, but outright exaggeration? His historical position was support for the Fair Tax. Since when did that go to 30%? It has always been a 23% consumption tax...

[Cerebral_DownTime]

OJ, if you want to have some fun, go to Youtube and find a video about Ron Paul and say something mildly negative about Uncle Ron. Something like "I think Ron Paul's economic policies might be bad", then let the hilarity ensue. I got 51 goddamn messages in 23 minutes. According to one guy " i'm a fascist faggot neocon and i'm being paid to say shit about Ron Paul".

[e0y2e3]

OJ and Cain's tax plan is going to derail this campaign fairly quickly:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... m-for-poor

[danwismar]

You're right, CDT. You don't want to get the Paulbots sicced on you.

And yes, Cain is toast, at least for the top of the ticket.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

You're right, CDT. You don't want to get the Paulbots sicced on you.

And yes, Cain is toast, at least for the top of the ticket.

lol. "Paulbots".... I call them Paulites. I've never seen so many rabid followers of a guy whose policies are really wacky. I think they want to go back to the 1800's when water was dangerous and Cholera, Typhoid, and Dysentery were epidemics.

[Orenthal]

OJ and Cain's tax plan is going to derail this campaign fairly quickly:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... m-for-poor

Brookings and the Urban Institute proclaim to be non-partisan, but both have a slight liberal lean. HOWEVER, it is incumbent on Cain to defend his plan and frankly I think I could have done a better job defending it against attacks during the debate. Though the explanation isn't sexy, and I can see why he tried to do soundbytes and pointing people to a website.

Anyone who ever ACTUALLY had to make a payroll would realize that anyone making over 200 some dollars a week is subjected to 15% (only gets higher as you make more) federal income tax withholding and 7.65% from FICA. That is over 22%. The lower brackets get some, all, or in excess of that 15% back depending on their deductions, but the 7.65% stays regardless, net/net it broadens the base and tries to eliminate the social engineering aspect of the code.

On top of that you reduce the 35% corporate tax rate, with a 9% rate. Now I understand effective tax rates are usually never 35% on the corporate side, but 2002-2006 (best I found quickly) average was 25%. Again anyone that knows anything about payroll is that employers also match the 7.65% FICA. Going from 25% to 9% on income tax reduces overall tax expense, and from 7.65% to 0% reduces the cost of labor. Both taxes are basically just collected by corporation from the consumer. The second makes labor cheaper, which makes COGS less, which means savings can be passed onto the consumer helping to offset the sales tax component. Also cheaper labor is more likely to be hired.

Also there is a litany of assumptions that he must do a better job of explaining. Goods are only taxed when new. Used cars aren't subject to the sales tax, existing homes aren't subject to the tax, blah blah, poorer people usually buy those goods anyway. They avoid tax on those items. Empoowerment zones can be used to "target" code subsidies in the same manner as the current code, but on a geographic dimension.

Then for those who don't spend every fucking dime of their income, that income is taxed at 9% PERIOD, DONE. I can now invest that savings, trade stocks without worry of tax consequences, reinvest my dividends without having to pay tax on money that went right back into the stock. It gives me more control over my tax burden.

Again he needs to do a better job defending his plan, and as a front runner that plan is now being vetted. I encourage that, and further vetting may prove it to be a total dud. Gingrich is right on this point, and that at least its a bold plan that can begin debate, unlike the rest of these schmucks with the 235 point enigmas.

Obvious negatives are making the 51% who pay nothing pay something. On the "future congress" or "future President" angle? That is laughable on its face. No current legislative body can control a future body, and Cain has smartly pointed that our current complex plan is easier to manipulate in such a manner then a simple transparent plan.

/sleep

[Orenthal]

You're right, CDT. You don't want to get the Paulbots sicced on you.

And yes, Cain is toast, at least for the top of the ticket.

lol. "Paulbots".... I call them Paulites. I've never seen so many rabid followers of a guy whose policies are really wacky. I think they want to go back to the 1800's when water was dangerous and Cholera, Typhoid, and Dysentery were epidemics.

A guy of some brilliant some wacky, but most theoretical, will get that type of ardent supporter.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

[Orenthal]

Art Laffer on Cain's 999 plan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I don't want to pay a fucking 15% combined sales tax. End of goddamn story..... you shitty pizza making fuck.

dickweasel.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Oh.... and what the fuck is a "Ron Paul money bomb"? Why does he have one? I should have the motherfucking money bomb. I'm awesome, Ron Paul is a goofy little fucking libertarian..... and don't care for libertarians and the way they pretend to wrap themselves magically in the constitution. Asswipes......

[e0y2e3]

Art Laffer on Cain's 999 plan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

Hell of a plan OJ. Pretend to run trickle down economics by cutting taxes for every rich fuck out there, but raise taxes on the middle to lower middle class as well as the poor (the "poverty line can eat my dick"), increase the cost of goods at the same time w/ a 15% tax and sell it as "BUT MORE PEOPLE WILL HAVE JOBS!!!!"



This is seriously the stupidest tax plan ever.

HEY!!, EVERYONE WILL SAVE THE TROUBLE AND $100 IT COSTS TO DO THEIR TAXES THOUGH!!#%$ Hint: when this is a major selling point of tax policy its pretty fucking stupid.

And he also just blatently lied w/ this line:

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.

[Ziner]

Why is this tax plan even being discussed? There is a better chance e0y2e3 sends SSS a Christmas card than this plan getting remotely close to passing. The GOP wouldnt even pass it because they couldn't carve out tax favors.

Cain needs to move on from this plan. OJ only supports it to cover up his racism.

[Prosecutor]

Again anyone that knows anything about payroll is that employers also match the 7.65% FICA.

If the 15.3% FICA contribution is eliminated for every wage earner, how is the government going to fund Social Security and Medicare? Has Cain been asked this question and if so, what was his response?

If he doesn't have one, he can forget about the senior citizens vote. Very few of them are wage earners but they're all on SS and Medicare.

He can also forget about getting the votes of those 51% whose earnings and deductions exempt them from paying any federal income tax. Those folks are looking at an 18% tax increase, and they're the ones that can least afford it.

When asked about that on Meet the Press he started talking about "invisible" taxes and claimed that when low income workers "do the math" they'll like his plan. It sounded like he was claiming that a loaf of bread will cost less to produce and therefore be sold at a lower price, more than negating the 9% sales tax. But how do you do the math on invisible numbers?

Without much support from seniors or people who make less than $50K, how is this guy going to get nominated and elected?

Oh, and his message that if you're not rich it's your fault probably isn't going to resonate with the majority of the electorate, either.

[pup]

Let me get this straight. He believes that is the cost of producing something goes down, those companies will lower the cost of those things instead of increasing their own profit?

What is this, The Fairy Tale Tax Plan?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Let me get this straight. He believes that is the cost of producing something goes down, those companies will lower the cost of those things instead of increasing their own profit?

What is this, The Fairy Tale Tax Plan?

I think he believes that if nobody is buying anything, companies will be forced to lower prices by attrition.

If nobody is buying your $500 TV, I'll swoop in and start selling mine for $400.

David Gregory absolutely eviscerated him over the 999 plan. Cain truly thinks that his tax plan will be good for the middle and poor classes. I was reading somewhere that a guy like Warren Buffet could actually end up paying 0% in taxes, since his plan doesn't tax capital gains or dividends.

When Gregory challenged him on the fact that his plan will raise taxes on the middle class/poor Cain kept repeating "most people will pay less" and then Gregory asked "then who will pay more?"..... Cain's stupid answer "the people who spend more on new goods".

[e0y2e3]

Honestly, he is trying to implement trickle down economics while cutting the spending power of the majority of people.

It's the assbackwardest thing ever.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The idea of paying $3,000 in taxes on a new $20,000 truck really makes me want to buy one.

[Ziner]

The idea of paying $3,000 in taxes on a new $20,000 truck really makes me want to buy one.

What truck costs 20K? Ford Ranger?

Always pictured you as more of a Prius guy

[jerryroche]

The idea of paying $3,000 in taxes on a new $20,000 truck really makes me want to buy one.

Here's the rationale behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, using a $50,000 annual income as an example.

You will pay $1,800 (9%) in federal taxes on the $20,000 truck. But if you're making $50,000 a year, your April 15th federal income tax will go down from about $11,000 (22%) a year to $4,500 (9%). Combining the VAT on the truck with your annual federal income tax (total $6,300), you will still have $3,700 in that calendar year to purchase goods, before you start paying more in federal taxes. That's enough money to purchase an additional $41,070 worth of goods at 9% VAT per dollar.

If I've got my math wrong, please LET ME KNOW -- because it sounds like a really good deal to me. No way am I going to be spending $61,070 ($41,070 + $20,000) in any one calendar year if my income is only $50,000.

To put it another, simpler way, 18% (9% base + 9% on purchases) < 22% (current base).

[Orenthal]

Again anyone that knows anything about payroll is that employers also match the 7.65% FICA.

If the 15.3% FICA contribution is eliminated for every wage earner, how is the government going to fund Social Security and Medicare? Has Cain been asked this question and if so, what was his response?

If he doesn't have one, he can forget about the senior citizens vote. Very few of them are wage earners but they're all on SS and Medicare.

He can also forget about getting the votes of those 51% whose earnings and deductions exempt them from paying any federal income tax. Those folks are looking at an 18% tax increase, and they're the ones that can least afford it.

When asked about that on Meet the Press he started talking about "invisible" taxes and claimed that when low income workers "do the math" they'll like his plan. It sounded like he was claiming that a loaf of bread will cost less to produce and therefore be sold at a lower price, more than negating the 9% sales tax. But how do you do the math on invisible numbers?

Without much support from seniors or people who make less than $50K, how is this guy going to get nominated and elected?

Oh, and his message that if you're not rich it's your fault probably isn't going to resonate with the majority of the electorate, either.

Cannot be EdgewaterJoe.

[e0y2e3]

The idea of paying $3,000 in taxes on a new $20,000 truck really makes me want to buy one.

Here's the rationale behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, using a $50,000 annual income as an example.

You will pay $1,800 (9%) in federal taxes on the $20,000 truck. But if you're making $50,000 a year, your April 15th federal income tax will go down from about $11,000 (22%) a year to $4,500 (9%). Combining the VAT on the truck with your annual federal income tax (total $6,300), you will still have $3,700 in that calendar year to purchase goods, before you start paying more in federal taxes. That's enough money to purchase an additional $41,070 worth of goods at 9% VAT per dollar.

If I've got my math wrong, please LET ME KNOW -- because it sounds like a really good deal to me. No way am I going to be spending $61,070 ($41,070 + $20,000) in any one calendar year if my income is only $50,000.

To put it another, simpler way, 18% (9% base + 9% on purchases) < 22% (current base).

Declaring a flat 22% tax rate is fooey, poopey shit.

Again, since apparently clicking links is impossible: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... m-for-poor

[Prosecutor]

jerry, if you're paying 22% of your income in taxes, then it is a good deal. But most people are not paying 22% of their gross income on federal income tax, if I'm not mistaken.

It's not too complicated at the income extremes. Wealthy individuals who are currently in the 31% and up tax brackets will see a significant decrease to 9%. Most of those folks also have signficant investment income, and I believe capital gains are not taxed at all under Cain's plan, so they get a decrease from 15% to zero on their investment income. This is a huge windfall for people with high salaries/bonuses and high investment income.

At the other end, people who are lower to middle wage earners would see a tax increase. And how is Social Security and Medicare funded if the FICA payroll tax is eliminated? That's a loss to the government of 15.3% of every wage paid in the country.

Finally, does anybody know where I can buy some used Air Jordans?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The idea of paying $3,000 in taxes on a new $20,000 truck really makes me want to buy one.

What truck costs 20K? Ford Ranger?

Always pictured you as more of a Prius guy

Silverado EC. $20K is just an rough estimate, I always shop around and do my best haggling. The wife wants to trade in her old Jetta for a new one, but my current Silverado is a year older so i get to go first.

and I couldn't even get my leg in a Prius.

Here's the rationale behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, using a $50,000 annual income as an example.

You will pay $1,800 (9%) in federal taxes on the $20,000 truck. But if you're making $50,000 a year, your April 15th federal income tax will go down from about $11,000 (22%) a year to $4,500 (9%). Combining the VAT on the truck with your annual federal income tax (total $6,300), you will still have $3,700 in that calendar year to purchase goods, before you start paying more in federal taxes. That's enough money to purchase an additional $41,070 worth of goods at 9% VAT per dollar.

If I've got my math wrong, please LET ME KNOW -- because it sounds like a really good deal to me. No way am I going to be spending $61,070 ($41,070 + $20,000) in any one calendar year if my income is only $50,000.

To put it another, simpler way, 18% (9% base + 9% on purchases) < 22% (current base).

I figure the sales tax on the truck to be 15% when you add in the near 6% state sales tax. Maybe i'm wrong, math is just not my strong suit, plus I find the tax laws/codes to be very convoluted. Shit.... I have my brother in law to do my taxes. He's like a human deduction machine.

[Orenthal]

The idea of paying $3,000 in taxes on a new $20,000 truck really makes me want to buy one.

Here's the rationale behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, using a $50,000 annual income as an example.

You will pay $1,800 (9%) in federal taxes on the $20,000 truck. But if you're making $50,000 a year, your April 15th federal income tax will go down from about $11,000 (22%) a year to $4,500 (9%). Combining the VAT on the truck with your annual federal income tax (total $6,300), you will still have $3,700 in that calendar year to purchase goods, before you start paying more in federal taxes. That's enough money to purchase an additional $41,070 worth of goods at 9% VAT per dollar.

If I've got my math wrong, please LET ME KNOW -- because it sounds like a really good deal to me. No way am I going to be spending $61,070 ($41,070 + $20,000) in any one calendar year if my income is only $50,000.

To put it another, simpler way, 18% (9% base + 9% on purchases) < 22% (current base).

Don't bother for all the complaining people do about Gross Pay -> Net Pay. Extending pup's logic why should we remove the regulatory burden from companies. They will just pocket any efficiencies. Also Jerry someone making $50,000 is in the 25% withhlding bracket.

Pros, try reading. My above posts states FICA is replaced. There is a reason the very unpopular sales tax is added. Many hidden taxes are removed.

[e0y2e3]

And just because I am sure most of you are too lazy to click a link w/in a link!!!

http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/disp ... ocTypeID=1

[Orenthal]

OJ only supports it to cover up his racism.

Fuck the poor.

[Prosecutor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html

This Washington Post column says a family of four making $50K gets a tax hike under 9-9-9.

[e0y2e3]

Thanks Pros, I've only posted three links on this page articulating that, including the original study.

As usual, you're reading well.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Listen, I think we can all agree that nobody likes Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry. They're really awful.

[jerryroche]

Okay. So all the poor people get screwed with Cain's 9-9-9 plan, and the rich get richer. Can't have that.

But there's no way the U.S. can dig itself out of its economic hole without increasing revenues, no matter what the Tea Party says. And the current income tax system is so friggin' screwed up that it has to be changed. I applaud Cain for at least putting something out there. Still waiting for most of the Republican candidates, the Democrats, the "supercommittee," and the President to throw something out there.

And enough of this B.S. pitting the poor against the rich, or so-called rich. We're all AMERICANS, dammit, we're in this together, and "shared sacrifice" shouldn't mean that only the "rich" have to pay more -- EVERYBODY should have to, me included and you included!

[e0y2e3]

I'm not really sure what digging out of this whole has to do w/ a tax policy centered around transfering wealth to the top while cutting off the spending powers of the middle and lower portions of the country.

All that for a system that will raise 1.2% more tax revenue?

Yeah, that certainly fits what your rambling about jerry.

[Orenthal]

Listen, I think we can all agree that nobody likes Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry. They're really awful.

Don't forget Santorum.

[Prosecutor]

This column breaks down in simple terms how the plan would affect taxpayers at different income levels. I apologize if it or something similar was already linked on one of the previous five pages of this thread.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20111019&id=14408737

[e0y2e3]

No, but columns outlining exactly what it says were linked three times on THIS PAGE.

You, as usual, don't read anything anyone else says and are just here to preach.

[Ziner]

I am not sure if anyone has laid out the details, but here are some links to describe the plan.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... y-pay-more

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-c ... nd-the-ugl

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/28/co ... ally-work/

Figured it might be useful to have some facts and figures

[Cerebral_DownTime]

And enough of this B.S. pitting the poor against the rich, or so-called rich. We're all AMERICANS, dammit, we're in this together, and "shared sacrifice" shouldn't mean that only the "rich" have to pay more -- EVERYBODY should have to, me included and you included!

No. The rich should pay more, there is no logical argument against it. The middle and poor classes have sacrificed enough.... jobs, homes, savings, and pensions. While the rich get tax breaks that make them richer. In other words, THEY AREN'T SACRIFICING ANYTHING!

And I love this "don't pit Americans vs Americans" cry...... that's exactly what the shithead right did to the Unions. Subhumans like the Koch Brothers and other slime spent buku bucks pitting their brainless base against other Americans.... the working class.

[pup]

And enough of this B.S. pitting the poor against the rich, or so-called rich. We're all AMERICANS, dammit, we're in this together, and "shared sacrifice" shouldn't mean that only the "rich" have to pay more -- EVERYBODY should have to, me included and you included!

No. The rich should pay more, there is no logical argument against it. The middle and poor classes have sacrificed enough.... jobs, homes, savings, and pensions. While the rich get tax breaks that make them richer. In other words, THEY AREN'T SACRIFICING ANYTHING!

And I love this "don't pit Americans vs Americans" cry...... that's exactly what the shithead right did to the Unions. Subhumans like the Koch Brothers and other slime spent buku bucks pitting their brainless base against other Americans.... the working class.

How about everyone pays the same percentage?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

What percentage would that be?

Does it apply to everyone, or just people over a certain income level?

[pup]

What percentage would that be?

Does it apply to everyone, or just people over a certain income level?

Some percentage. Don't know what it would or should be. But what makes more sense than everyone that makes money, pays the same percentage of that money to taxes? You should not be taxed at a higher % because you make more money. You pay more because you make more, but at the same rate. I know it is too simple to work, but sometimes simple works.

And yes, EVERYONE.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Let's say it's 15%, you're going take 15% from someone who makes $500K/year and someone who makes $12K/year? I think that's going to crush the people in the lower/middle income brackets, especially if they have to pay a payroll and sales tax on top of it. I can't see how it wouldn't hurt the economy since the lower/middle classes carry the it on their backs in this country and you're taking away money they would otherwise spend.

I understand that people think it's unfair to tax people more because they make more. But if you tax the wealthy more, they're still going to be wealthy. There was a time when the income tax rate was double what it is now on the rich, and they did just fine.

[pup]

Let's say it's 15%, you're going take 15% from someone who makes $500K/year and someone who makes $12K/year? I think that's going to crush the people in the lower/middle income brackets, especially if they have to pay a payroll and sales tax on top of it. I can't see how it wouldn't hurt the economy since the lower/middle classes carry the it on their backs in this country and you're taking away money they would otherwise spend.

I understand that people think it's unfair to tax people more because they make more. But if you tax the wealthy more, they're still going to be wealthy. There was a time when the income tax rate was double what it is now on the rich, and they did just fine.

Say it is 15. That is $1800/year for someone making 12K. It is $75,000/year for someone making 500K.

I am pretty sure they guy making 500K is getting taxed more.

I still fail to see how someone making 12K/year is the driving force behind our economy.