Cain's 9 - 9 - 9 Plan: Chart of Tax Brackets & How Much Your Taxes Would Change...

[Aikouka]

Cain keeps talking about the taxes embedded in product costs being removed. I don't see where this is accounted for either.

Given the idea that the point of a business is to make money (and they've certainly kept to this principle), why would a business reduce prices just because their costs for the item in question have been reduced? That doesn't really make any sense.

 

[Patranus]

Given the idea that the point of a business is to make money (and they've certainly kept to this principle), why would a business reduce prices just because their costs for the item in question have been reduced? That doesn't really make any sense.

Supply and demand driving retail prices?

 

[SilthDraeth]

I always proposed a 3-6-9-12 tax plan.

If you make 10k or less a year, you pay 3%, and just adjust the income as needed to the tax% they pay.

The simple thing about it though, if it is how he says it is, a lot of the hidden taxes would be eliminated, and replaced with a flat 9%. Not really sure if his tax plan would generate revenue or not.

Still the government spending more than it takes is a higher tax than any other tax.

 

[Patranus]

I always proposed a 3-6-9-12 tax plan.

If you make 10k or less a year, you pay 3%, and just adjust the income as needed to the tax% they pay.

The simple thing about it though, if it is how he says it is, a lot of the hidden taxes would be eliminated, and replaced with a flat 9%. Not really sure if his tax plan would generate revenue or not.

Still the government spending more than it takes is a higher tax than any other tax.

How about everyone pays their fair share by paying the same percentage?

 

[Gamingphreek]

I always proposed a 3-6-9-12 tax plan.

If you make 10k or less a year, you pay 3%, and just adjust the income as needed to the tax% they pay.

The simple thing about it though, if it is how he says it is, a lot of the hidden taxes would be eliminated, and replaced with a flat 9%. Not really sure if his tax plan would generate revenue or not.

Still the government spending more than it takes is a higher tax than any other tax.

I think every GOP Candidate I have heard speak wants to curb federal spending. Hopefully whoever it is comes through on that. (Hint: Cutting the Defense budget by X% is not the answer - though there are probably a lot of things that can safely be cut there)

 

[Aikouka]

(Hint: Cutting the Defense budget by X% is not the answer - though there are probably a lot of things that can safely be cut there)

I've been wondering... could cutting the defense budget make our unemployment situation even worse than it already is?

 

[Eos]

I've been wondering... could cutting the defense budget make our unemployment situation even worse than it already is?

I would think so, in the short term at least. But those newly unemployed would simply start a business and thus not be another one of the many without a job, right?

 

[Fern]

I've been wondering... could cutting the defense budget make our unemployment situation even worse than it already is?

Our defense budget should be cut as we continue to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't thinking bringing troops back would hurt employment. In fact, may even help it as they will be over here buying products etc.

Fern

 

[chihlidog]

This 9-9-9 plan scares the crap out of me.

I work for a non-profit, so I dont make much. I have 3 kids, a wife, mortgage, etc. We arent wealthy but we're OK.

This 9-9-9 could ruin me. Literally. I cant claim to be an authority, but if it significantly increases my taxes (as going by some calculations it will but I'm not sure what to believe yet) then that means in order to maintain my very modest lifestyle, I will have to take on a 2nd job just to pay the federal government that I have completely lost faith in. People say this all the time, but I do mean it very literally, if he gets elected, I , as a registered Republican, will make a serious effort to emigrate to another country.

 

[Aikouka]

Our defense budget should be cut as we continue to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't thinking bringing troops back would hurt employment. In fact, may even help it as they will be over here buying products etc.

Fern

I was considering that people are stating how hard it is to find a good job, if we bring home deployed soldiers or start closing bases... what are they going to do for work?

 

[xBiffx]

I was considering that people are stating how hard it is to find a good job, if we bring home deployed soldiers or start closing bases... what are they going to do for work?

I would think the budget could take a pretty good whack before people's jobs are at stake. People seem to forget that a substantial part of the budget is equipment, not personnel.

 

[Fern]

I was considering that people are stating how hard it is to find a good job, if we bring home deployed soldiers or start closing bases... what are they going to do for work?

You seem to be assuming soldiers would be fired. I'm saying we can cut the budget a good deal by just bringing them back to their usual work on the base they're usually stationed at.

Then, being here instead of abroad they will be spending their military pay at local grocery stores, restaurants, movie theaters etc.

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

I can't afford $4000 in extra tax. I would literally be homeless.

 

[xBiffx]

I can't afford $4000 in extra tax. I would literally be homeless.

Mind, for the sake of this argument and as another example, showing how you came up with this number. Personal examples are all we have to go off of for now.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I would think the budget could take a pretty good whack before people's jobs are at stake. People seem to forget that a substantial part of the budget is equipment, not personnel.

Not only that, as with any budget, there are cost cutting measures you can take. Phase out legacy products, sell off old products, restructure management, etc...

Regarding the question though, if they cut some of the percentages I have been hearing them *absolutely* it would hurt jobs. In NOVA a HUGE amount of people work for Defense Agencies or Contractors. Cutting too much there would hurt bad...

-GP

 

[Aikouka]

You seem to be assuming soldiers would be fired. I'm saying we can cut the budget a good deal by just bringing them back to their usual work on the base they're usually stationed at.

Then, being here instead of abroad they will be spending their military pay at local grocery stores, restaurants, movie theaters etc.

Fern

I wasn't assuming that they would be "fired" (discharged?) but rather that they would go on reserve status. Do you think there would be work for them at the local bases? I've also heard lots of chatter about people wanting to close bases (local and abroad) as well, which would cut down on the number of available positions. Just seems like it would create a bit of a mess.

EDIT:

Regarding the question though, if they cut some of the percentages I have been hearing them *absolutely* it would hurt jobs. In NOVA a HUGE amount of people work for Defense Agencies or Contractors. Cutting too much there would hurt bad...

I was actually ignoring defense contracts, because I figured cutting that portion of the defense budget was a bit more obvious in regard to the ramifications.

 

[Fern]

I wasn't assuming that they would be "fired" (discharged?) but rather that they would go on reserve status. Do you think there would be work for them at the local bases? I've also heard lots of chatter about people wanting to close bases (local and abroad) as well, which would cut down on the number of available positions. Just seems like it would create a bit of a mess.
-snip-

Good point. I hadn't thought of the reservists. I have no idea what would happen, whether their private sector jobs would still be available etc.

I haven't heard anything about closing any bases in the USA. I think that would be difficult to do. No Congress person is going to want any base in their district closed.

Fern

 

[Bird222]

How about everyone pays their fair share by paying the same percentage?

Look, I know that mathematically it is fair when everyone pays the same percentage, but this boils down to what kind of country/society you want to live in. Every flat/fair tax I have heard about has percentages that would hurt poorer people too much. Now if we are talking maybe 3% or less maybe everyone could pay that but then what kind of services (including defense) would we have at that level of revenue? Once again you are back to asking the question of what kind of society do we want.

 

[SilthDraeth]

How about everyone pays their fair share by paying the same percentage?

If everyone pays the same share, then certain things deemed necessities would need to be excluded.

Gas, not necessarily a necessity in some places, but in a lot of places in America, fuel and vehicles are needed to get to work.

Food items. Though, I am sure some lines would end up being drawn on what is required food and what is indulgence.

Point being, if someone is making 10,000 a year, paying 900 is more detrimental to them, than someone making 100,000 a year and paying 9k. That would be the only reason for modifying income tax.

In general a consumption tax placed on all items also hurts lower class poor people more.

Note: I if people have to pay taxes, then all people that are working should pay them. I just think the amount should be different. I don't agree with poor people getting "tax returns" for taxes they never payed. IE getting 5k a year back in "earned income credits" when they payed nothing to start. That is bullshit.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I think the plan is ridiculous. It encourages people not to spend money, how's that going to help the economy. I make quite a bit and I spend a lot of money on frivolous shit. Last week I bought an 860 dollar set of dumbbells and a bench. I just wouldn't buy it or I'd get it from Craigslist or something. On the other hand, poor people, who spend most of their money on food, insurance, and housing will be getting totally shafted.

Either way, even if he becomes president, there is absolutely 0% chance of this ever being passed.

 

[Patranus]

Point being, if someone is making 10,000 a year, paying 900 is more detrimental to them, than someone making 100,000 a year and paying 9k. That would be the only reason for modifying income tax.

No, the point is that everyone should pay their *fair* share and it isn't the job of the government to redistribute wealth or use other peoples money to enact pet social projects.

Right now 1% pays 40% and are told they are not paying their "fair share" while 47% pays NOTHING.

 

[Phokus]

This is why Cain's 9-9-9 plan is bad, in picture form since you imbecile conservatives can't seem to grasp words and ideas:

 

[shira]

I was considering that people are stating how hard it is to find a good job, if we bring home deployed soldiers or start closing bases... what are they going to do for work?

According to Herman Cain, it they can't find good jobs when they get back, it's their own damn fault. Clearly, the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been going to night school in Baghdad and Kabul - learning marketable skills - when they were done fighting insurgents for the day.

 

[Nebor]

According to Herman Cain, it they can't find good jobs when they get back, it's their own damn fault. Clearly, the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been going to night school in Baghdad and Kabul - learning marketable skills - when they were done fighting insurgents for the day.

You laugh, but plenty of classes are available in Kabul. I tutored a Navy LT on algebra and derivatives so he could take the GMAT at Camp Phoenix. Also I literally don't know anyone that I was commissioned with that isn't taking graduate courses while deployed in Iraq right now. Everyone in Iraq that isn't a logistician working on the withdrawal is pretty much sitting on their asses, because we won the shit out of that war.

 

[halik]

You have to make the same assumptions for all people in all income brackets.
If we are to assume that someone making $10,000 spends 95% of their income then you have to make the same assumption for someone making $1,000,000.

Using those assumptions someone making $10,000 pays $900 in income taxes with $9,100 after tax income of which $8,645 is spent and taxed at $778.05 or a total tax burden of $1,678.05 in federal taxes which equates to about 16%.

Someone making $1,000,000 would pay $90,000 in income taxes with $910,000 after tax income of which $846,000 is spent and taxes at $77,805 or a total tax burden of $167,805 in federal taxes which equates to about 16%.

Seems pretty equatable to me.

That is fucking retarded - it's not an assumption, this is a fact: the AVERAGE person in the US does spent 95% of their after tax, average income in the U.S. is $40K. The savings rate goes up with income, also a fact, therefore the incidence of the sales tax is borne on the poor.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...VQQRHF&sig=AHIEtbQ0ah97tRiKIWWuSy4lTJHlUzC2yg

The used good argument is moot point as best - higher sales tax would translate to higher residual prices for used goods, which amounts to the same thing.