9-9-9 is a very bad idea...

[GSLevel9]

Lets just look at the sales tax. Are there exceptions for food and clothing?

Right now we have a majority in this nation who pay zero net income tax after refunds, eic, etc...

So you're going to take these folks... And increase the cost of their purchases by 9%?

A family of 4 can spend $600 per month in groceries... Will they pay an extra $54 in tax? Maybe they won't tax groceries...

So go to the ATT store to grab a new iphone. Sure the phone is $399 and the local sales tax is 8% ($32) and the cain tax is 9% is $36. That's $68 in taxes for a retail purchase.

And the ratio of taxable income... A man makes $3000 per month, after his rent and non taxable purchases/expenses lets say he's being taxed 9% on his $1500 monthly spending or $135. That's about 4.5% of his total income.

A wealthier person making $10,000 might have double the taxable expenditures and pay $270 per month in cain tax. However... That's only 2.7% of his income.

If Cain were wise... He'd find a way to run from 9-9-9.

Simple solution, a small increase in income tax at $100k with higher brackets at $250k, $500k, etc...

[HockeyMom]

1. Yes, he said he would tax food and clothing

Who do you think that would hurt the most? I watched part of the debates where Santorum asked the supposedly Republican adudience if they liked this 999 tax structure. I didn't see one single hand go up.

[golfguru]

4. plz see post #3

[flpoljunkie]

2. There's good reason why Bruce Bartlett called Cain's 999 Plan a 'distributional monstrosity.'

Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.

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

[golfguru]

3. May be not! Most families will be ahead under 999?

Actual example: Take a simple case where income is only
paycheck(s), family of 4 earning $45,000 per year.

Current tax system:
==================
Gross Paycheck = $45,000
Federal tax = $2059
Payroll deductions = $3442.50
State tax 6% = $2700
Rent or Mortgage+Property tax at $1200/month = $14,400
Car payments = $3600
Utility bills = $300/month = $3600
401-k contributions or savings = $1000

Net amount available to spend =
45000 -2059 -3442.50 -2700 -14400 -3600 -3600 -1000
= $14,198.50

Under 999
=========
Gross Paycheck = $45,000
Federal tax = $4050
Payroll deductions = 0.0
State tax 6% = $2700
Rent or Mortgage+Property tax at $1200/month = $14,400
Car payments = $3600
Utility bills = $300/month = $3600
401-k contributions or savings = $1000
Raise available from employer at no cost
to employer = $3442.50

Money available to spend =
45000 -4050 -2700 -14400 -3600 -3600 -1000 +3442.50
= $19,092.50 - 9% sales tax = $17,183.25

Under 999 this family is 17183.5 - 14198.5 = $2985 ahead! If the employer values you as a good employee there is no reason they can't give you the raise which does not cost them a single penny.

[SheilaT]

5. I think there may be something wrong with the math.

I don't see where you get a "Raise available from employer at no cost to employer". You start with the same 45k salary, and the Federal tax just about doubles. The payroll deductions in the first case are things like FICA and health care and maybe deductions to the "cafeteria" plan. I gather that under 999 the FICA will go away, but instead there's a much larger federal tax. I don't think you can just plug that money back in as if it is a separate amount the way you show it.

[golfguru]

8. Under current system your employer pays $3442.50 payroll tax

based on my example of $45,000 gross paycheck. In other
words, the employer is also required to pay same payroll tax as you.
Your employer will not be required to pay that tax.
So, instead of paying IRS, they can give you all of
that $3442.50 as a permanent raise without costing them a dime.

I did not add benefits from no tax on dividends, or
capital gains from sale of stocks, or subtract any other
fixed expenses you might have such as making monthly
payments on medical bills, paying off other loans, buying used stuff, etc.
all of which further reduces your discretionary spending
money to buy "NEW" stuff resulting in less federal sales tax.

Note, the federal sales tax applies only to NEW stuff
you will purchase, not to any monthly payments.

[Robbie88]

9. What makes you think that employers are going to just give all of that money to their employees as

a raise, rather than just keep it for themselves?

Not buying it for one second, sorry.

[golfguru]

17. If you are worth keeping, every smart employer will

it does not cost them anything.

[Empowerer]

19. Really?

[golfguru]

27. Good way to find out lol

But honestly, there is absolutely no excuse for your
employer to grab that money from you.

[Empowerer]

29. You certainly have high expectations of employers

Expectations that have no basis in reality.

And your notion that an employer will do that in order to keep an employee is rather odd, given the current state of the job market. What is an employee going to do if the employer doesn't want to giver the money - threaten to quit and take their talents elsewhere? If that were so simple to do, we wouldn't be having a job crisis.

[golfguru]

31. You know what I am basing it on?

Every time I gave 2 weeks notice with all my employers in 37 years working span, they always gave me a raise to keep me there. If you are a good worker, every good
employer should do that. If they don't you really don't
want to stick around there anyways.

[Empowerer]

35. Well then, I guess that settles it.

Did you ever have trouble getting a job when you wanted one?

[golfguru]

37. Never

I only had 4 jobs in 37 years and I was never laid off or fired. I always had a new job lined up before I quit.

[Empowerer]

40. Well then, I guess your assessment DOESN'T settle anything at all since it's based on circumstances

that many, many Americans don't have the luxury of sharing.

YOU may never have been laid off or fired or been without a job. But a significant number of Americans aren't so fortunate. And YOUR employers may have found you to be too indispensable to let go without a fight (or more money), but that's not the case for plenty of other people.

So your assumption that employers will give their windfall under 9-9-9 back to their employees based upon how YOUR employers treated you during your very fortunate career just doesn't hold water.

[golfguru]

59. So, will you give me an actual example

with numbers, as I have done, to show me how the 999 tax system would hurt a certain situation? I am evaluating 999 because I do not like to throw out any idea simply because it originated in the opposition party. if we keep doing that in both parties, not much is going to improve.

As for Herman Cain, I have serious dis-agreements on serious issues, such as abortion rights, size of military, Federal Reserve issues, budget priorities. I am never going to vote for him in general. But that does not mean if he has one new idea, I am going to reject it in knee jerk fashion, simply because it is from Herman Cain.

[golfguru]

41. Current job situation: 9.1% unemployment

Economy is not all that hot, so why are employers hanging on to that 90.9%? because usually the dead wood is laid off first. At least that is my observation. Employers will hang on to as many good workers as they can.

[Empowerer]

44. Are you serious? Are you in the right forum?

Your arguments sound like right wing talking points.

[golfguru]

47. If facts become right wing talking points then we disagree.

[Empowerer]

52. If you think it's a "fact" that the unemployed were "laid off first" because they're "dead wood"

then you really are in the wrong forum.

[EffieBlack]

54. My Daddy told me never to argue with an illogical person

Didn't yours ever teach you that?

:rofl:

[golfguru]

56. No I concede, the best employees are always laid off first!

<sarc>

[starroute]

73. Well, yes, because the highest paid workers are often the ones laid off

If an employer has the choice between laying off the 50 year old earning $50,000 and the 25 year old earning $25,000 -- which one do you think is going to go?

Employers may have formerly valued "good" employees, but those days are long past.

[MH1]

115. Real situation - a couple years ago at my job

near the beginning of the recession, several people were laid off.

Two of those who were laid off from my department were commonly thought - amongst everyone I talked to amongst us peons - as two of the sharpest, most hard working, innovative, and productive people in the group. We couldn't believe that they'd been laid off, at first. After some of us discussed it, we agreed that the reason must've been that their respective supervisors axed them due to perceived competitive pressure. In other words, each of those two guys could have ultimately been chosen for promotion over their current supervisors.

Despite being hard working, productive, and innovative (that last might also have hurt them), they had relatively common skillsets which meant that alleged replacements could readily be found.

So yes, under certain circumstances, excellent employees can be laid off. (For those who are concerned about it happening to them, try to pick up some responsibility/knowledge in your company that no one else wants to do, thus no one else will be bothered with knowing how to do it, and your manager will hesitate to have to deal with replacing you unless he REALLY hates your guts.)

[mikekohr]

117. Your personal observations/experience does not match mine

Layoffs mostly go by senority except in professional classes, and even in those cases senority plays a major factor. I would expect the majority of employers would not pass on the payroll tax to their employees.

Anyone else agree?

[Empowerer]

49. Deleted - responded to wrong post

[ProSense]

45. Um

"Economy is not all that hot, so why are employers hanging on to that 90.9%? because usually the dead wood is laid off first."

...WTF?

[golfguru]

48. Self explanatory

Have you held a job in any non-governmental situation?
That is how I have observed it, unless you belong to a
union, then it is by seniority.

[ProSense]

50. Right

"Self explanatory"

...referring to people who are laid off or unemployed as "dead wood," explains a lot, and puts most of your comments in context.

[golfguru]

57. Sorry, if that term offends

I take it back. Putting in more gentle terms, what I have seen in 37 years of employment, is that who gets laid off is taken very seriously. I was a dept. supervisor in one job, so I have seen it first hand. We were asked to submit to our next higher boss, an evaluation of each employee in our group. Age, race, or gender were never to be taken into assigning scores. Experience, productivity, and ability to work well with others were the main criteria for evaluation. The term "dead wood" is a derogatory term, I concede that point. Because no one is totally dead or wood. Generally it meant low productivity. I worked in a engineering office, and we were all non-union. So seniority did not protect us. We had to perform to survive layoffs, which were many because of cyclic nature of the business.

[SheilaT]

61. I've more than once seen

that senior employees get laid off because they have higher wages. How lucky you were to work for companies that never took that into account.

[golfguru]

62. Yes, I consider my self lucky

because I was lucky to find a job in an area of my
interest. If you like your work, you are more likely to perform better. However my real luck was that I was able to combine my engineering education with computer programming knowledge, in a company which was really in need of those kind of tools. We computerized the heck out of engineering and manufacturing. That gave us a big advantage over competitors in production costs, and just as important, our delivery time on orders dropped from 6 month average to 4 month average. Customers who wanted the machines ASAP bought them from us before the longer delivery time of competitors.

[ProSense]

64. The

Yes, I consider my self lucky
because I was lucky to find a job in an area of my
interest. If you like your work, you are more likely to perform better. However my real luck was that I was able to combine my engineering education with computer programming knowledge, in a company which was really in need of those kind of tools. We computerized the heck out of engineering and manufacturing. That gave us a big advantage over competitors in production costs, and just as important, our delivery time on orders dropped from 6 month average to 4 month average. Customers who wanted the machines ASAP bought them from us before the longer delivery time of competitors.

...I'm great and "lucky," survival of the fittest mentality is disgusting. Not everyone is "lucky" and not every company succeeds.

[golfguru]

78. We are all

born with equal rights. What we do with our lives,
depends greatly on what we choose to do with our
lives as grown ups. There are millions of people
right here in this great country who started with
nothing, and made something of themselves with effort.

I have lived in 3 countries, and visited dozens, and I
have not seen any country which offers one the opportunity
to elevate your life as much as this country does.

[ProSense]

89. And

We are all
born with equal rights. What we do with our lives,
depends greatly on what we choose to do with our
lives as grown ups. There are millions of people
right here in this great country who started with
nothing, and made something of themselves with effort.

I have lived in 3 countries, and visited dozens, and I
have not seen any country which offers one the opportunity
to elevate your life as much as this country does.

...some people like to feign stupidity. Who knows, maybe it's not an act?

They believe that the impacts of discrimination/racism, inequity, ill health and natural disasters are a function of bad personal choices.

People like that disgust me.

So please, take the survival of the fittest bullshit and pitch it to the assholes who think like that. Maybe you could look up this guy and share your stories of personal responsibility over a drink.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

92. Oh look

"Unfortunately, life's a bitch, so you pick yourself up and dust yourself off, but this goes way off track of the main point. Many feel the U.S. needs an overhaul of the Federal Tax System (both personal and corporate). Out of all of the candidates, including Obama, nobody (except Cain) has shown the courage to at least propose a plan."

...a Cain fan. Herman Cain has the "courage" of a predator attacking old people. He's a sick opportunistic fuck!

[saras]

72. You have worked at exactly four REALLY BIZARRE AND UNREPRESENTATIVE jobs. That's all.

It's like someone who spent their entire life working for Bell Labs not getting "Death of a Salesman" (pardon the OLD references, but it's an OLD issue)

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EffieBlack]

90. That's because you're so much more talented, special and smarter than the average person

If everyone just busted their tails the way you did, we'd have no employment crisis in this country since we all know that unemployment is caused, not by any market forces, lack of demand, etc., but is the fault of the people who keep getting fired and not getting hired because they aren't as wonderful as you.

:sarcasm:

P.S. Are you sure you're in the right forum? It seems that you'd be more at home in a Republican forum where selfish, mean-spirited, superior, self-satisfied "I got mine, let them get theirs" attitudes are more than welcome.

[TwilightGardener]

51. Yep, only the dead wood ever lose jobs. And everyone who can't find

work that pays a living wage is lazy. Because departments are never cut to the bone, foot traffic is never down in furniture stores and shoe stores and car lots in a bad economy, factories never shut down and move overseas...plenty of jobs out there, and if you don't have one, it's because you don't deserve one--unlike YOU, you speshul person, you.

[EffieBlack]

53. No wonder you love Herman Cain's plan so much and are pushing it so hard

You sound just like him,

"You got laid off because you're dead weight" is just another way of saying "If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."

What a shame that all Americans aren't as talented, hard-working, and sought-after as you.

[golfguru]

58. I am not pushing anything, I am evaluating

I posted one actual example, in which case the family would benefit. Give me another actual example with numbers, which will show 999 plan would end up with less money to spend. I am easy to convince, with real examples, not generalities based on how one "feels".

If this country is ever going to get better, we need to look at every idea out there. It should not matter if a idea originates in the wrong party. Otherwise we all will be rabid partisans and never get anything done to improve the economy. Do you remember what Obama said when he won the presidency, "there are no red states, there are no blue states, these are United States" (paraphrasing).

[ProSense]

65. Ah

"I am not pushing anything, I am evaluating"

...bullshit!

I posted one actual example, in which case the family would benefit. Give me another actual example with numbers, which will show 999 plan would end up with less money to spend. I am easy to convince, with real examples, not generalities based on how one "feels".

If this country is ever going to get better, we need to look at every idea out there. It should not matter if a idea originates in the wrong party. Otherwise we all will be rabid partisans and never get anything done to improve the economy. Do you remember what Obama said when he won the presidency, "there are no red states, there are no blue states, these are United States" (paraphrasing).

You posted spin, and when challenged on it, you went into rants about how you're a great employee as opposed to the "dead wood" that make up the 9.1 percent of unemployed. Upon further challenge, your defense moved to being a great and "lucky" employee.

You were given a real analysis (not based on personal likes, dislikes and good fortune): The 9-9-9 plan for an average household, and for a wealthy one

The plan sucks, it can't work and if you doubt that, listen to the clown who came up with it.

Cain: ‘I Have No Idea’ How My 999 Plan Would Work

Cain Economist: ’999′ Plan ‘Wouldn’t Be The One I Picked’

You attempt to quote the President: "there are no red states, there are no blue states, these are United States."

You know what he didn't say: The unemployed are "dead wood" and only the "lucky" people matter.

[Empowerer]

67. You didn't "evaluate" - you presented a "scenario" with a huge assumption, without which, your claim

fails.

If Herman Cain's - or anyone else's plan - only benefits employees IF employers decide to voluntarily give them a raise, it does not benefit employees.

Take out the voluntary pay raise from your scenario and Cain's plan hurts employees.

Of course, Cain could adjust his plan to REQUIRE employers to pass their cost savings on to employees, but I can predict what the response would be to that . . .

And trying to paper over your endorsement of Cain's ridiculous plan with a lecture about how we need to consider "every idea out there" regardless what party proposes it doesn't cut it. The problem is not that Cain' plan was not looked at. The problem is that it WAS looked at and anyone who actually did look at it can see that it's pure crap.

[salinen]

70. Survival of the fittest

is Randian. Ron and Rand and Ayn. Good for you that you're smart & fit. Everyone else can eat it.

[Ikonoklast]

95. Just like they have been passing along tremendous increases in productivity the last thirty years

along to their employees.

You live in fantasyland.

The employers haven't passed any of those increases in profits yet, or tax savings from the government, but they will now, all of a sudden?


Lots of Libertarians among the engineering types. You seem to fit the bill.

[SheilaT]

60. And given that executives in many corporations

are getting large raises, being given bonuses, while the rank and file either get no raises or are being required to take pay cuts, I think your idea that they will give that money to the employee because "it costs them nothing" is laughable.

Surely you are not that naive.

[Empowerer]

68. If it's so certain that they will pass it on to employees, why not mandate it as part of the plan?

If a selling point of the plan is that employers will give the money back to the employees and it won't cost employers anything, certainly no one would have a problem with employers being MANDATED to give it back.

Of course, we no better. The squawking and whining that would result would be deafening - and would also drown out the argument that employers would be happy to give the money back.

[LiberalFighter]

15. And then the employee and spouse is screwed when they reach retirement age.

They are not likely to save for retirement when they have access to cash that readily. Then everyone will have to pay in lower standard of living.

[golfguru]

30. Good point! All will depend on your retirement nest egg..

If you have dividends or capital gains, the 999 makes them tax free. And you will still be paying rent or mortgage, making medical payments, etc none of which
are taxable with federal sales tax...only NEW stuff you buy. I am retired and buy very little new stuff, mainly food, meds, and gasoline. My car now lasts lot longer with
no daily commute to work.

[beac]

82. Technically, you are correct that a $3442.50 raise would not cost the

employer "a dime"-- but NOT giving it to you would SAVE them $3442.50.

Do you honestly think most employers, faced with the choice of incurring the SAME salary expense for you or SAVING $3442.50 a year, would opt to give you $3442.50 of their "profits"?

Not bloody likely.

[ProSense]

10. So

"May be not! Most families will be ahead under 999?"

...you're trying to find merit in a plan so silly even Cain is trying to disown it?

Cain: ‘I Have No Idea’ How My 999 Plan Would Work

Cain Economist: ’999′ Plan ‘Wouldn’t Be The One I Picked’

The math in your post reminds me of the guy who was trying to prove he can't live on $250,000.

[golfguru]

32. That is correct...not every family will come out ahead

You have to do your own math. I posted an example of a
family of 4 with standard deductions.

My guess is that people with paychecks will do better
than people who do not pay payroll tax, such as some retirees.

[GSLevel9]

11. the mistake you make...

is that the family in this example TODAY get a refund from their FED taxes and EIC... so they dont really pay most of that FED tax.

[golfguru]

18. My tax computation was made by turbo tax n/m

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. How About The Nine Percent Sales Tax On Food, Gas, And Other Necessities?

.

[golfguru]

20. Glad you asked, that is included in my example

That $19,092.50 money you can spend for everything, including food, gas will require paying 9% federal sales tax = $1718.32 leaving you net $17,183.25 for cost of goods after paying that tax.

[Empowerer]

14. Does your calculation for the current tax structure include deductions for mortgage and 401k?

[golfguru]

21. I am using standard deductions

you may want to refigure using your exact numbers.

Look, I am not pushing for 999, just stating facts, since I always want the real story behind everything.

[Empowerer]

24. People with mortgages and 401ks usually itemize

But even with the standard deduction, they'd pay much lower taxes than you are claiming.

You may not be pushing for 9-9-9, but it sounds like it. And you really gamed your numbers by throwing in an imaginary pay raise that is in no way certain or even likely.

Regardless, pretty much however you slice it, the plan would result in a substantial tax increase for most people making less than $50k. And it would be an absolute economic disaster for low income Americans.

[golfguru]

33. Make your own computations based on your specific

situation. I would be very much interested in your
conclusion.

[Empowerer]

38. My situation isn't really relevant. But here are some computations that are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-9-9-9-plan-for-an-average-household-and-for-a-wealthy-one/2011/08/25/gIQAGKYzhL_blog.html

[ProSense]

28. Hmmm?

"Look, I am not pushing for 999, just stating facts, since I always want the real story behind everything."

No, it appears you're manipulating the numbers to give credence to a bogus plan.

Here's a real analysis: The 9-9-9 plan for an average household, and for a wealthy one

[golfguru]

34. Every situation is different, I merely stated one EXAMPLE

Have you done computation for your specific situation?
Again, I like to know real story behind anything instead of rejecting it out of hand.

[ProSense]

36. Oh

"Every situation is different, I merely stated one EXAMPLE"

...please. You "merely stated one EXAMPLE" that shows a plan, that almost everyone states will devastate the middle class, will actually benefit them.

It's selective nonsense.

[golfguru]

39. I do not like to discard anything without analysis

Like I said you have to compute your own situation.
I merely posted an example so people can get a good idea
how to compute their own situation.

[ProSense]

42. That's

"Like I said you have to compute your own situation."

...not analysis, that's spin. Like I said previously, your math reminds me of the guy who claimed he couldn't live on $250,000.

[Empowerer]

43. If people are going to "compute their own situation" they need to toss out your assumption

that their employers are going to give them a raise . . . unless that's been their experience with their employers in the past. But tossing in a few thousand extra dollars based on YOUR experience doesn't make any sense - and, as I noted earlier, it falsely boosts your numbers.

[golfguru]

46. There is a difference between the raise you ask for and

the raise due to elimination of payroll tax.
In the first instance, the money comes out of the
employer's pocket....so obviously difficult.

The payroll tax elimination gives a chance to give
you a raise which does not cost him anything. Only
stupid employers will try to screw you out of that.
Why stay with stupid employers? It is a loser.

[bullwinkle428]

55. You realize this plan completely abolishes Social Security & Medicare.

That's a major source of the "huge savings", so how many millions end up getting screwed down the road?

[Renew Deal]

75. With absolutely no social security.

[Ikonoklast]

93. You left out all the payers of 9% taxes along the supply chain.

Food will double in cost under Herb's plan, for instance.

Nice to see you defending your pal here, though.

Try harder, you fool no one.

[ieoeja]

104. You forgot to add 9% to mortgage and car payments.

Gross Paycheck = 45000
Federal Tax = 4050
Payroll deductions = 0.0
State Tax 5% = 2700
Rent or Mortgage+Property Tax at $1308.00 = 15696
Car Payments = 3924
Utlity Bills = 300/month = 3600
401k contributions or savings = 1000
Raise Available from Employer at No Cost to Employer = 3442.50

Money Available to Spend = 45000 - 4050 - 2700 - 15696 - 3924 - 2600 - 1000 + 3442.50 = 18472 - 9% Sales Tax = 16809.98

Ignoring the massive expansion in the supply chain, you have an extra 2611.48.

Of course, the retailer paid an extra 9%, so that is now = 16809.98 - 9% Sales Tax = 15297.08.

And the wholesaler paid an extra 9%, so now you are down to = 15297.08 - 9% = 13920.34.

Then the wholesaler bought from the manufacturer, so ... 13920.34 - 9% = 12667.51

You are already more than a thousand behind, yet there are probably more hands than those listed here to siphon off 9%. And all those business write-offs we eliminated? Those will have to be added to the price of everything every step along the way. Not only the businesses above, but the shipping companies as well.

I am single with a 6 figure income, and this plan is still going to kill me.


And as a plus, you can kiss moderate sized farming goodbye. Since the farming industry does not set prices, but rather the buyer does, those buyers are going to cut what they are willing to pay by 9% (probably more to split the hurt to them between the farmer and their customer). A lot of people in rural America have been pining for another Reagan who presided over the greatest destruction of farming and the rural economy since the Great Depression. When this is through with them, the 80's *will* look like golden times in comparison.

[EffieBlack]

105. AND we'll need to add 9% to the $3442 "my employer so good to me" bonus

that Golfguru seems to think employers will kick back to their employees, since that would be taxable income - adding another $300 to the tax burden under this scenario.

[mactime]

108. Thanks

Thanks for going in to so much detail on this. I was discussing this plan with some friends earlier. I had initially dismissed it but I did some research and found this post. If I understand it correctly won't most of the embedded taxes on products fall away too, making products cheaper anyway?

[Enthusiast]

110. "Raise available from employer at no cost = $3442.50"

:rofl: :rofl:

[Lyric]

116. Except for the poorest families--the ones who can LEAST bear the burden.

They don't pay ANY federal income taxes right now. Add in a 9% national sales tax on top of state sales taxes, and you're going to starve people who are already hungry.

[greymattermom]

6. Kansas

already has sales taxes on food and clothing. The extra 9% will make buying food at regular stores almost impossible.

[GSLevel9]

12. that's AWFUL... I'm in Taxifornia and they don't tax food... nt

[golfguru]

26. Here in WA state also no tax on food & prescriptions n/m

[plcdude]

69. check out

Washington's sales tax and footnote (J)

[ChazII]

16. We are taxed here in Scottsdale, AZ, too.

[golfguru]

25. Plz see post 22

[golfguru]

22. Not true, since you are getting all of your payroll taxes back

Please take a good look at your paycheck and see how much they deduct for social security and medicare. The
999 plan claims that tax will go away.

[ChazII]

113. Thanks for the information.

I should have been more specific in that where I live there is a sales tax on food.

[Harmony Blue]

80. The vast majority of jobs in America is retail or service sector

this plan would cripple the demand driven U.S. economy. Too bad the hedge fund managers on CNBC who believe in supply side can't admit we are a demand driven economy.

[amandabeech]

7. He has a plan. It is simple. It is clear. He doesn't waiver.

That will get him a lot of votes in the pub field, and maybe even among desperate independents.

Don't underestimate this guy.

[golfguru]

23. Exactly, I am not pushing for 999, just stating facts n/m

[EffieBlack]

71. You're not "stating facts" - you're making things up

Cain's plan does not include nor does it require that employers pass on their savings to their employees. That's an assumption you're making - and without that assumption, your numbers don't work and your conclusion doesn't hold water.

If you were just "stating facts," you would simply provide a factual scenario based on Cain's actual plan, not one that includes your assumptions of how it might work. And that factual scenario would look like this:

Current tax system:
==================
Gross Paycheck = $45,000
Standard Deduction = $8,500
Deduction for Exemptions = $14,500 (4 exemptions@$3,625)
Taxable Income = $21,700
Federal Tax = $2,648
Child Tax Credit (based on 2 children)
TOTAL FEDERAL TAX = $648

Payroll deductions = $3442.50
State tax 6% = $2700
Rent or Mortgage+Property tax at $1200/month = $14,400
Car payments = $3600
Utility bills = $300/month = $3600
401-k contributions or savings = $1000

Net amount available to spend =
45000 -648 -3442.50 -2700 -14400 -3600 -3600 -1000
= $15,609.50

Under 999
=========
Gross Paycheck = $45,000
Federal tax = $4050
Payroll deductions = 0.0
State tax 6% = $2700
Rent or Mortgage+Property tax at $1200/month = $14,400
Car payments = $3600
Utility bills = $300/month = $3600
401-k contributions or savings = $1000


Money available to spend =
45000 -4050 -2700 -14400 -3600 -3600 -1000
= $15,650 - 9% sales tax = $14,241.5

Under a FACTUAL analysis of Cain's plan, a family of four with an annual income of $45,000 comes out $1,368 BEHIND.

[golfguru]

79. Like I said umpteenth time,

if you are a good worker, and your employer is not stupid, you will get that raise. If your employer is stupid, no sense sticking around, that outfit is doomed.

[beac]

83. I've read a LOT of stupid things in my time, but that really takes the cake.

Your disconnect from the reality of the business world is astounding.

A "not stupid" employer would take the $3442.50 per employee (assuming in your mythical company there are several such people) and use the sum total to hire more employees/buy more materials/do more advertising/upgrade his facilities. Yes, that would create jobs and be good for the overall unemployment rate*, but to try and pretend it would be good for individual middle class families is beyond ridiculous.





* notwithstanding the evil of making the middle class pay for this job creation rather than the 1%ers

[EffieBlack]

84. And this assumes that the employer is not one of the ones who currently sit on trillions of dollars

in profits that they are not giving back to their employees OR using to hire more employees/buy more materials/do more advertising/upgrade facilities.

If an employer isn't doing it now, Cain's asinine plan is not going to make them suddenly want to give money back to their employees or do anything else with it other than take it as additional profit.

[beac]

91. Exactly.

But, according to golfguru, people should just be quitting their jobs in those "doomed" companies and waltzing easily into a new job with a "smart" employer? I wonder why that isn't happening??:shrug: :eyes:

[golfguru]

98. It is not happening because....

...there must be something wrong with the current tax code? Is it just possible that something new might be worth a try, since current system is not working so great? Or should we keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results?

[EffieBlack]

100. The current system needs fixing and something new may be worth a try

But given the seriousness of this issue, that "something new" needs to be more than a ridiculous, half-baked idea that some guy and his investment adviser sketched out on the back of a napkin so that he'd have something catchy to talk about during a quasi-serious presidential campaign.

If someone comes a long with a serious idea, I'm sure people will be glad to take a look at it. In the meantime, Herman Cain and his plan are jokes and they will get the attention they deserve.

[golfguru]

102. On that we can agree

but I have not seen any significant proposals to our tax code, other than 9-9-9, have you?

[beac]

103. Yes, there IS something wrong with the current tax code---

billionaires don't pay enough.

But you haven't been all over this thread advocating "something new"-- you've been trying to claim that 999 would somehow be a boon to middle class families and that employers would pass on payroll tax savings as "free" raises. And, much like doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, believing in your scenario is the definition of insanity.


edited for typo

[golfguru]

97. If you are happy with the current tax code, then you are obviously

doing just fine. But I am afraid all those who are not so happy with current situation may not agree.

[EffieBlack]

99. I doubt that those who aren't happy with the tax code want to fix it with a MORE regressive system

At least the ones who aren't as smart, hard-working and in-demand as you are - you know, the ones who would get their asses kicked by such a ridiculous plan and those of us who give damn about them.

But all of this back-and-forth is irrelevant, since your new hero's plan is about to be laughed off of the table as the shallow joke that it is.

[golfguru]

101. You are mis-stating my posts

Show me in my posts where I said Cain was my hero or his plan is great! I was hoping some one would post their actual numbers and prove one way or other. Instead all I have seen is general comments and opinions. That is not analysis. Your opinion is no employer will want to give you a raise which costs him nothing. Fine, that is your opinion. That is not what I have observed over many decades of observing thousands of employees.

[Ter]

63. You wouldn't pay two taxes, just one

If something you buy (say a phone or TV) costs $399, you would pay just the 9%. No more local taxes.

[plcdude]

66. no more local taxes

and then the pigs began to fly. Check out this table of "local" taxes not one states sales tax (California is close) come close to 9%. Where are the state's and the local communities going to find funds to run things? http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/245.html

[Harmony Blue]

76. So without local taxes how will the roads be maintained that are not part of the U.S highway system?

Pinellas County, Florida used a county 1% tax to make the overpasses for U.S. 19 for example. Don't buy the right wing talking points.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. You Failed Civics

We have a federal system, The federal government can't prevent states from levying taxes. And how are state governments going to function without taxes.

[Ter]

114. I've never failed any such thing

There a lot of things the feds can't tell states to do but do so anyway. We haven't had a functioning 10th Amendment in 150 years. States can function perhaps if parts of the taxes go to them.

[alfredo]

74. It works just fine in Sim City

[Harmony Blue]

77. Haha

Sim City most have been the inspiration of this insidious idea.

[alfredo]

86. According to Huffington Post it is.

[Harmony Blue]

107. That is just sad

if that is true.

[alfredo]

112. He said he got it from an advisor. Maybe that advisor got

it from Sims City.

[sofa king]

81. It amuses me because it's the ONLY plan the GOP has.

They're all over it because in the midst of a crisis entirely created by themselves, they've not been able to propose one single idea that helps clean up their own mess. Two years ago, they couldn't even produce a counterproposal to the President's budget plan that actually contained numbers. So of course it's a terrible plan. Their actual plan is to steal elections, and profit from that theft. Anything else is incidental to that plan.

It's exactly like a recidivist car thief trying to sell a stolen car that he knows nothing about back to its original owner: "Hey, I just steal elections; I can't actually fix the nation I destroyed."

Or, to put it another way, "That's hardly my area of expertise," the http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/">Onion prophetically joked ten years ago. And whomever stepped out of the Tardis to write that article almost certainly stepped right back into it, 'cause we're screwed nine ways to Sunday now, as predicted.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EffieBlack]

96. You've been here five minutes ... pushing Cain's plan ... spewing Republican talking points . . .

Welcome to DU - enjoy what I hope will be a very brief stay.

[sofa king]

106. Aww, I missed it!

Did he hate me for my freedom?

[progsrock]

88. More tax

Another huge problem with 9-9-9 is that personal income tax is on total income with no exemptions or deductions (i.e., no personal exemptions or standard/itemized deductions). So, take 9% of your total salary and that's how much you would be forced to pay. This is not just more for lower income people but middle to upper middle class earners as well - especially if you itemize deductions. My family would have to pay 12-13% more than we pay now.

[Enthusiast]

109. 999 is a horrible idea.

But it's about on par for a stupid Republican idea. 80% of the American people want to raise taxes on the wealthy -not lower them.