Wells Fargo employee crafted Cain's 999 plan

[gunowner930]

I'm not a big fan of Cain's 9-9-9 plan because of the new Federal sales tax. He is reducing two existing taxes to add another. If the 16th Amendment was repealed a sales tax may be justifiable. Cain has claimed that he would make the bureacracies more efficient. However, I have not heard him claim that he would make any spending cuts other than Obamacare. Federal spending has got to be reduced, and I just don't think that Cain has the will to support significant spending cuts.

 

[CarmelHP]

27% total would be a tax cut for me. Probably for a lot of us. Remember, this is for FICA, too.

And that 9% sales tax is only on things you purchase. Do you spend every bit of your income each year? No savings? No charitable gifts? Never purchase things in situations that are exempt from sales tax (buying from individuals, etc.)?

I find it hard to believe it would be a cut for you. How do you figure that, even with FICA included?

 

[Prometheus]

I find it hard to believe it would be a cut for you. How do you figure that, even with FICA included?

I think he is thinking it would include a cut in social security withholding as well perhaps? Even then... josh must be pulling in some serious coin. Good for him if he is, but I'd venture to say most of INGO doesn't break 6 figures a year given the firearms discussions and choices I see having to be made quite frequently.

This would be a huge tax hike for virtually every INGO'er.

 

[gunowner930]

This would be a huge tax hike for virtually every INGO'er.

If it's revenue neutral as another poster claimed, then Cain is just switching which taxes are paid and not really cutting taxes. Again, will Cain reduce spending in a significant way?

 

[rambone]

If it's revenue neutral as another poster claimed, then Cain is just switching which taxes are paid and not really cutting taxes. Again, will Cain reduce spending in a significant way?

This. Playing this shell game with the tax system is a distraction. We have to stop spending or we are destined to implode.

 

[ATOMonkey]

This. Playing this shell game with the tax system is a distraction. We have to stop spending or we are destined to implode.

It's only revenue neutral, because it increases GDP. Hardly a shell game, but yes it does shift tax burden around.

If you listen to any of Cain's broadcasts you'll quickly get a feel for his stance on Federal spending.

Cain understands that if you shut off the free milk overnight, there are going to be riots in the morning. You have 150 million people receiving patronage, and you don't think anything bad will happen if you just quit doing that?

That austerity riots in greece will look like Mardi Gras if that happens.

 

[hooky]

So we should keep the current monstrosity of a tax system where politicians use it to reward lobbyists and gain political favor and contributions?

Who else has any kind of a plan to reform the current system that nearly everyone complains about as being "broken" or "corrupt" or "unfair"?

 

[nawainwright]

Here is what I get from the 999 plan.
personal income tax 9% yep I will pay it
National sales tax 9% Yep I will pay it
corparate tax 9% yep the corparations will not pay it and it will be filtered down to the consumer.

So cains 999 plane means 9+9+9=27% tax on people like you and me.

He should be honest and just call it the 27% Tax plan.

Um....you don't know how "math" works do you? Personally, I'm a proponent of a Flat tax (then you get rid of huge chunks of that pesky IRS), however, I cannot let bad math stand (and I was a speech major).

9% personal income....yep, good there.

9% national sales tax....it doesn't immediately add 9% to your tax burden. It is based on what you buy. If you spend your entire paycheck on commodities, then, yes it would amount to a 9% increase in your tax burden. But I'd be willing to bet that your mortgage/rent, electric, water, phone, etc are a huge portion of your spending per month (rent/mortgage alone is around a quarter of your monthly spending). Add in the other fixed costs that are exempt from sales taxes already (assuming they stay that way, which likely they would) and nearly 40% of your income is spent. Thats not counting what you would normally save. So lets not be ignorant.

9% corporate tax....sure, they will pass it down, but that does not mean that you will bear 9% of your income. It will be spread out over many people. Not only that, many companies pay more than this already. Sure, it would impact your bottom line, but not as much as 9% and it may even reduce the burden.

All that said. Based on my meager understanding of economics, the average spending American would end up with an overall burden of 15% of their income or so going to taxes (predicated of course on their level of spending). We aren't talking arithmetic here, we're talking algebra. Will this raise many american's tax burden's? Hell yes it will, most significantly the nearly 50% of people who pay no taxes. If you are one of those people, then yes, yes you will have a higher burden. It will lower many people's tax burdens. If you're a rich person who spends ridiculous stupid amounts of money buying crap, then your tax burden will also, likely, go up. No reason for ignorance here. My figures/guesstimates may be off, but the reasoning behind it is not.

 

[ViperJock]

I think he is thinking it would include a cut in social security withholding as well perhaps? Even then... josh must be pulling in some serious coin. Good for him if he is, but I'd venture to say most of INGO doesn't break 6 figures a year given the firearms discussions and choices I see having to be made quite frequently.

This would be a huge tax hike for virtually every INGO'er.

So what is more important, a fair law or a law that benefits you? Rhetorical of course.

 

[Prometheus]

So what is more important, a fair law or a law that benefits you? Rhetorical of course.

A truly fair system would be one in which we don't steal money from person A (over the barrel of the tax mans gun) to give to person B.

We can COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the personal federal income tax if we just roll back spending to 1990's level. There is "neutral" swap I can get behind.

Why is that not acceptable to you people?

WTH is wrong with some of you people, do you want a smaller government and lower taxes or not? Frack, this is why America is doomed.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, you want to reduce social security, medicare, medicaid, etc payouts?

 

[nawainwright]

So, you want to reduce social security, medicare, medicaid, etc payouts?

Yes. Simply put.

 

[hooky]

We can COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the personal federal income tax if we just roll back spending to 1990's level. There is "neutral" swap I can get behind.

.

Is there a source for this claim?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, that would be nice, but it won't happen.

My proposal is to sunset the current wealth distribution programs. Grandfather everyone who is already enrolled. No new enrollments. The problem fixes itself after a while.

 

[Prometheus]

Is there a source for this claim?

U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

The personal federal income tax makes up less than 45% of the revenue collected by the federal government.

Were we a weaker nation in the 90's as compared to today? What did the people not have in the 90's that they have today?

I thinking rolling back spending to 1990's levels would in no way weaken America and would leave thousands of dollars in the pockets of hard working Americans. Right where that money should be!

No one can tell me why they are opposed to such a plan (outside of those who works for the IRS or are tax accountants).

 

[jamil]

U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

The personal federal income tax makes up less than 45% of the revenue collected by the federal government.

Were we a weaker nation in the 90's as compared to today? What did the people not have in the 90's that they have today?

I thinking rolling back spending to 1990's levels would in no way weaken America and would leave thousands of dollars in the pockets of hard working Americans. Right where that money should be!

No one can tell me why they are opposed to such a plan (outside of those who works for the IRS or are tax accountants).

I suspect the devil's in the details of that one.

I think a balanced budget requirement would go a long way towards solving many of our problems, but I think for the first several years it would be the glue that lubricates the wheels of progress.

 

[hooky]

U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

The personal federal income tax makes up less than 45% of the revenue collected by the federal government.

Were we a weaker nation in the 90's as compared to today? What did the people not have in the 90's that they have today?

I thinking rolling back spending to 1990's levels would in no way weaken America and would leave thousands of dollars in the pockets of hard working Americans. Right where that money should be!

No one can tell me why they are opposed to such a plan (outside of those who works for the IRS or are tax accountants).

No offense, but this has the same level of detail as Paul saying he's going cut spending to the point that it will eliminate the IRS. I'd like to understand how you go about implementing such a thing and how the numbers work.

 

[ATOMonkey]

U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

The personal federal income tax makes up less than 45% of the revenue collected by the federal government.

Were we a weaker nation in the 90's as compared to today? What did the people not have in the 90's that they have today?

I thinking rolling back spending to 1990's levels would in no way weaken America and would leave thousands of dollars in the pockets of hard working Americans. Right where that money should be!

No one can tell me why they are opposed to such a plan (outside of those who works for the IRS or are tax accountants).

As long as you aren't opposed to killing off about 50 million old and poor people, I think that could work.

1990 outlays $1.2T total

2010 mandatory spending only - $2.173T

 

[CarmelHP]

As long as you aren't opposed to killing off about 50 million old and poor people, I think that could work.

Oh, please. So, none of those elderly have private resources, or even great wealth, that are pulling government checks? And none of those on the dole are able to work or survive on their own? I find that very difficult to believe. If one-fifth or one-sixth of the population is going to lie down and die if the fedgov goes out of the handout business then we're already doomed.

 

[88GT]

A truly fair system would be one in which we don't steal money from person A (over the barrel of the tax mans gun) to give to person B.

We can COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the personal federal income tax if we just roll back spending to 1990's level. There is "neutral" swap I can get behind.

Why is that not acceptable to you people?

WTH is wrong with some of you people, do you want a smaller government and lower taxes or not? Frack, this is why America is doomed.

What's wrong? I'm trying to figure out how someone with that much hypocrisy in his post can stand on his pedestal and lob such insulting tirades against the same people he will need to stand with him to achieve the goals he wants to achieve.

You claim you want an end to wealth redistribution in your first statement but then focus solely on the spending totals without regard to where it's being spent in the second. By your argument, you have just said you don't care how the money is spent as long as the total does exceed X. Just as long as we reduce it back to 1990s levels. And what if to do that the only thing they saved were the wealth redistribution programs.

You come across as a raving lunatic with nothing more than an emotional diatribe. And the end result is that no matter how much the content of you message could solve all the problems, it won't matter because no one wants to listen to you insult them.