Cain's 9-9-9 plan?

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Richard L

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
8,432
Reaction score
11
Location
Waco, TX
Is there some website that I can go, to read Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan that presents the plan as Cain presented it, without editorials or claims of who pays more or less taxes under his plan.



I also have a plan I call the 10-10-10 or a 10-10-0 flat tax plan and I am just curious about the similarities or differences between the two plans.



...Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does this help?



Phase One



Our current economic crisis calls for bold action to truly stimulate the economy and Renew America back to its greatness. The 9-9-9 Plan gets Washington D.C. out of the business of picking winners and losers, using the tax code to dole out favors, and dividing the country with class warfare. It is fair, simple, transparent and efficient. It taxes everything once and nothing twice. It taxes the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rates. It is neutral with respect to savings and consumption,capital and labor, imports and exports and whether companies pay dividends or retain earnings.



9% Business Flat Tax

- Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports.

- Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone



9% Individual Flat Tax.

- Gross income less charitable deductions.

- Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.



9% National Sales Tax.

- Unlike a state sales tax, which is an add-on tax that increases the price of goods and services, this is a replacement tax. It replaces taxes that are already embedded in selling prices. By replacing higher marginal rates in the production process with lower marginal rates, marginal production costs actually decline, which will lead to prices being the same or lower, not higher.



Economic Impact

- According to former Reagan Treasury official Gary Robbins, of Fiscal Associates, the 9-9-9 Plan will expand GDP by $2 trillion, create 6 million new jobs, increase business investment by one third, and increase wages by 10%.



9-9-9 Plan: Summary

- Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers

- Provides the least incentive to evade taxes and the fewest opportunities to do so

- Lifts a $430 billion dead-weight burden on the economy due to compliance, enforcement, collection, etc

- Is fair, simple, efficient, neutral, and transparent

- Ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors

- Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits

- Exports leave our shores without the Business Tax or the Sales Tax embedded in their cost, making them world class competitive.

- Imports are subject to the same taxation as domestically produced goods, leveling the playing field.

- Lowest marginal rates on production

- Kills the Death Tax

- Allows immediate expensing of business investments

- Eliminates double taxation of dividends

- Increases capital formation which aids capital availability for small businesses

- Increased capital per worker drives productivity and wage growth

- Features a platform to launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to renew our inner cities

- The pro-growth, pro-job, pro-export economic policies of the 9-9-9 PLAN equals a strong dollar policy



More details at the link below.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Herman Cain has long been a proponent of the Fair Tax. His 9-9-9 plan is a transition to the Fair Tax.
 
Thanks guys.



That will give me some reading over the next few days.



I have always been infavor of a a 10% flat tax on income with an exemption for the first $10K of individual income and an option of a 10% flat sales tax for all states except for food products, and only if they eliminate property taxes and any state income tax which would be their option. My plan would eliminate all other tax exemptions ncluding home mortgage, rent, and charitable contributions. I don't thin the US government has the authority to limit or restrict state taxes, but I think my option would be attractive enough to be acceptable to most states.



There would also be a standard 10% business tax on gross profit, however there would be exemptions based on the number of employees and their individual salaries. That would help stimulate jobs.



...Rich



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard,



Could you define "Gross Profit". I operate a small business out of the house. I deal only in "Gross" and "Net". 10% of gross would exceed my yearly net. This would effectively put me out of business. If I passed this 10% on to the consumer that would mean a 20% increase in product cost. Effectively putting me out of business.



Cain taxes gross after deducting purchase of goods. Which is reasonable, but still more than I am paying now. Anyone DBA is claiiming Net Profit as income on there personal taxes.



You show promiss as a policitian. You have already upped 9-9-9 to 10-10-10.



:bwahaha:
 
Richard,



Pick up a copy of the books The Fair Tax Book and FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics, both by Neal Boortz. They're very good at explaining the Fair Tax concept in an easy read. I've read both and am sold on a national retail sales tax to replace personal/corporate income tax, payroll taxes, death tax, capital gains tax, and other federal taxes.



Amazon.com links:

<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320431511&sr=8-1">The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS</A>



<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Answering-Critics-Neal-Boortz/dp/B0027CSNOO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1320431511&sr=8-2">FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics</A>



Or, just check out the web site: <A HREF="http://www.fairtax.org">FairTax.org</A>
 
Redfish,

You are correct, I should have said net profit instead of Gross Profit. I certainly don't want to put you or anyone out of business...:grin:



Perhaps the 9% Cain suggested may be adequate...I don't have enough info to say which amount would work. I know Mit Romney jumped on him and said he we have to pay the 9% in addition to the 35% he is already paying....I kind of doubt that he is paying the full 35%...Perhaps only on his governor's salary..



I am not in favor of Rick Perry's 20% tax since is leaves all the loopholes and exemptions that only the wealthiest can use. Even at 35% the pay less than the average guy just as Buffet said...His secretary pays more taxes than he does....That's not right !



TrainTrac,

I am not so much in favor of a national sales tax....most of the plans I've seen are a bit excessive and always include a sales tax on food. Most states don't tax food and I think that puts an excess burden on those who can barely get by, even on food stamps.



Also, most flat tax with no exemptions or exceptions would trim the IRS down to only investigating those who may be hiding income. It would eliminate deductions for dependents and people who claim their dog or cat as a dependent, and by eliminating all the deductions (except the first $10K earned), it eliminates all the headaches of determining what deductions are allowed and which are not. If a husband and wife work, they both file separate returns and they each get their $10K exemption...No more "Married filing jointly" and no more worry about whether "Same Sex Marriages" are legals".



We could probably drop the IRS staff down to about 1/4 of the existin staff since most of the income verification is done by computer. You will always have people who do not report tips or other cash businesses, but the bulk of IRS investigations will simply not be necessary.



...Rich



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard L said:

I am not so much in favor of a national sales tax....most of the plans I've seen are a bit excessive and always include a sales tax on food. Most states don't tax food and I think that puts an excess burden on those who can barely get by, even on food stamps.



Not under the Fair Tax. From the Fair Tax web site:

To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful.



The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.



Richard L said:

Also, most flat tax with no exemptions or exceptions would trim the IRS down to only investigating those who may be hiding income. It would eliminate deductions for dependents and people who claim their dog or cat as a dependent, and by eliminating all the deductions (except the first $10K earned), it eliminates all the headaches of determining what deductions are allowed and which are not. If a husband and wife work, they both file separate returns and they each get their $10K exemption...No more "Married filing jointly" and no more worry about whether "Same Sex Marriages" are legals".



Under the Fair Tax, no filing is necessary at all for federal taxes, only state as required.



Richard L said:

You will always have people who do not report tips or other cash businesses



Under the Fair Tax, they'll be paying federal taxes. From the Fair Tax website:

Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice.



Do a little research on the Fair Tax and then see what you think of it. Here's a thumbnail sketch to get you started:



<A HREF="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail">Fair Tax Basics-Thumbnail</A>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac,

I know what the national sales tax (Fair Tax is and how it works) but I lived in Europe for about 8.5 years and most countries use this type of taxing system. I found it to be excessive...perhaps because most of those countries also has some form of socialized medicine. That can also stifle the economy when people stop buying mechandise except necessities.



...Rich
 
If you're only buying necessities, it's not because of the tax code. Neither currently or under a hypothetical Fair Tax. You're just poor. Currently, you are taxed on the necessary goods, regardless of you income level. Under the Fair Tax, there is a deduction for every American up to the line determined to cover necessities. Essentially, you only get taxed when you buy over that "necessity" line and start purchasing luxuries.



I would vote for any politician that held firm to a promise to enact the Fair Tax, regardless of any other policy - social, economic, or foreign... This would go a long way toward fixing a lot of this country's problems. The tax code is that important. And it is that messed up right now. The OWS crowd is misplacing their resentments and needs to be marching on Washington.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I lived in Europe for about 8.5 years and most countries use this type of taxing system.



Are you sure you're not confusing a Value Added Tax with the Fair Tax? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the type of taxing system used in Europe, where a tax is assesed/paid all along the chain of production from raw material to final retail sale. The Fair Tax is only applied to retail sales, and then only on new purchases, not used ones.



Again, from the Fair Tax website:

What about value-added taxes (VATs), like they have in Europe and Canada? Are they not consumption taxes?



While VATs are also consumption taxes, and better than income taxes, the FairTax is not a VAT. A VAT works very differently. It taxes every stage of production. It is much more complex and is typically hidden from the retail consumer. Second, in industrialized countries that have a VAT, it coexists with high-rate income tax, payroll, and many other taxes that, in some instances, have led to marginal tax rates as high as 70 percent. Third, all other industrialized countries, except Australia and Japan, have a much larger tax burden than the U.S., which requires higher rates and makes tax administration much more difficult. Lastly, a VAT is a lobbyists dream, allowing them to install their loopholes unbeknownst to the purchaser. A retail sales tax, in contrast, is a lobbyists nightmare, applied as it is under the bright lights of the retail counter.
 
TrainTrac,

I do know the difference between a sales tax and a VAT tax. And I am not advocating a VAT tax for the US, but I also dont agree with every negative thing the Fair Tax people say about the VAT taxes in Europe.



Good things about a VAT tax are, Consumers dont see the VAT tax, but they know its there. We pay a lot of taxes in the US that are hidden or buried in the cost of the item. The difference in Europe is if you go into a store and buy something marked as 100 Euros, thats what you pay. In the US if you buy something marked as costing $100 you have to pay state and local sales taxes, which are added on to the quoted price and might make that $100 item cost you about $110.



We as American consumers are paying a form of VAT tax now. When we purchase anything all the taxes and overhead costs as well as the profit for all of the manufacturers, producers, handlers, distributors, etc are included in the quoted sales priceand then they add state and local sales taxes on top of that? Even the gasoline we buy includes all the costs, taxes and profit Exxon or Chevron had to pay as well as a hefty load of Federal, state and local taxes as well. A Tax is a Tax whether you want to call it a VAT tax, Sales Tax, Income tax, etc.



So I disagree with the Fair Tax website that a VAT Tax is any worse than our current Sales

Tax system, with the exception that the VAT tax in some European countries is excessively high, and may be more complicated. But most European countries do not have income tax as we know it. They may or may not have a payroll tax but this is to fund and pay for their various form of Social Security and socialized Healthcare costs..



The problem I see with the US income tax system is that everyone pays excessively high initial tax rates, The concept of filing an income tax return to qualify for certain deductions is somewhat like applying for rebate on a piece of electronic equipment you purchased. They know some people wont file, and if you made less than a certain amount of money for that year, you indeed dont have to file, but you also will not get back the taxes you did pay?

Our current income tax system uses Deductions and Exemptions to reduce the individuals tax burden, however most of the Deductions and Exemptions have very specific rules to qualify and unnecessarily complex that most average or middle income taxpayers cannot understand the convoluted rules and dont even apply for those deductions or exemptions.



The government is counting on the fact that most people will not understand the deductions, or will assume they do not qualify, so will never get those deductions. Even the IRS cannot always accurately interpret their own tax regulations, and they frequently lose court cases when challenged by a taxpayer with the money and fire power to take them on in court.



Of course the wealthiest people have tax attorneys available to delve into these complex tax laws and extract every penny in deductions and exemptions so that the wealthiest people often pay far less tax than those who are at or barely above poverty levels.



So even though we can see that the wealthiest people are taxed at a high 35% rate, few if any of them ever pay anywhere close to that rate. As Warren Buffet said, he pays less taxes than his secretary. If we did away with all the deductions and exemptions, everybody could pay the same 9% to 12% tax rate and the government would have more money than they know what to do with (but Im sure they will find ways to spend as fast as they get it...:grin:) So I think we need to pass a Balanced Budget Ammendment to insure that they don't spend more than they revenue the collect. We probably also need some ammendment to stop our politicians from inventing new sources of revenue...:grin:



...Rich

 
The biggest problem with the VAT in the U.S. is that the conversation is about adding it to the current tax code, not replacing it. That would absolutely destroy our country.



With the Fair Tax, everyone pays the same amount of taxes relative to their lifestyle. If a miserly old billionaire decides not to spend a dime outside of the necessities and only spends $14,000 in a year, he pays no taxes. If a below poverty level individual decides they need a $2,000 (insert luxury here), they get taxed on it. Both chose what taxes they wanted to pay.



In a more real life scenario, the billionaire is going to get taxed on essentially every purchase, as the first "necessity" level will probably be blown through in a weekend. He will then be contributing much more in taxes than before. The poverty level individuals will buy their necessities. If they buy things they don't need, they have made that choice, and they get taxed on it. I wouldn't be above raising that "necessity" line to somewhere over $20k for an individual and $45k for a family. That would seem fair to me. That would allow housing to be considered in that necessity level. Get those people to start being able to really take care of necessities and with any leftover money, they spur the economy.
 
Hugh,

I agree that a "Fair Tax" solution is simpler and more fair to all, but then there is the problem of excessively taxing poor people who purchase necessities....That's why I would not support any Fair Tax solution that would tax food. The Fair Tax solutions do not look at individuals who are poor or have limited or fixed incomes.



That's why I think a simple Flat Tax income tax solution is better. By keeping the tax rate between 9% and 12% and eliminating all the current tax deductions and exemptions except for the first $10K (perhaps even more) of individual income. That would mean a married couple with both parents working could deduct the first $20K in income, but there would no longer be any kind of "Married filing Jointly" returns.



I think that simplifies the role of the IRS as each individual files an idividual return and does not matter if the person is single or married, or has a gay living partner, etc. The IRS would only be tasked with verifying individual's income and certainly could eliminate a lot of unnecessary employees who are currently auditing returns for proper deductions and exemptions that would not longer exist.



I do not include children or other deductions since that I think the size of the family is a matter of personal preference and should not become a burden on other taxpayers. I think the middle class already pays too much to support other people's children. That also eliminates a source of IRS issues regarding who has custody of the children and can claim them as dependents when the parents are divorced or separated.



My biggest objection to the Fair Tax concept is that when you put all the taxes on the back end (consumer side) you tend to limit what people spend. In a depressed economy, That can be very detrimental to the economy where the law makers and politicians start looking at other sources of revenue...and you end up with new taxes. If you provide tax incentives to businesses based on the number of employees and their average salaries it would more attractive to businesses to keep employees working or at least keep the low to middle income employees.



...Rich







 
I agree that a "Fair Tax" solution is simpler and more fair to all, but then there is the problem of excessively taxing poor people who purchase necessities....That's why I would not support any Fair Tax solution that would tax food. The Fair Tax solutions do not look at individuals who are poor or have limited or fixed incomes.



Yes it does. There is an exemption on the necessities. That's why I mentioned that I would like to see it raised to an even higher level than currently being discussed. The level I mention raises it above "necessities" level, but would really help spur growth in the lower middle class and impoverished. That is, if they use their money wisely. No government tax plan or institution can fix foolishness.



As for your last comments, I think the fair tax would capture any "lost" revenues by actually taxing the very wealthy that currently work their money through loopholes. I don't think it would have any negative effect on spending; I actually believe it would encourage more spending.
 
DoctorCad.



When it comes to providing for those that can't provide for themselves, the haves, not the have-nots get to decide what is necessary. Sounds harsh, but there is an old saying: beggars can't be choosers.



I'm not saying that the poor are beggars, just saying that when it comes to entitlement, someone has to decide. Those that draft the laws (tax codes, etc) get to decide. If we don't like it, we get to "occupy" places. LOL.



I like the idea of fairtax. Those that are poor and low income pay little because much of their base spending is exempt. Those in the middle pay-as-they go. If they want to spend more, they pay more. Those at the top, especially those that have and spend lots of money will pay more, no doubt more than they pay today with their loopholes, etc.



TJR
 
Top