Herman Cain's '999 plan'

[a777pilot]

There is no valid reason other than expediency to have income and private real property as a basis for a tax system.

The 16th Amendment was instituted because the government needed a method of getting revenue when their past source, the production and sale of alcoholic beverages was on the decline and the Congress was fighting the on rush of the 18th Amendment.

Now that we live in a world of computers and most transaction taking place on or recorded on the web, there is no good reason not to end all income tax and taxes on private real property and base our tax system on the use of money/wealth vice the accumulation of money/wealth.

It is NOT regressive at all. The wealthy spend tons more than the poor or middle class so as they do now, they will continue to pay the bulk of the government's revenues.

The example I like to use is....recently Mr. Buffet "invested" $5 billion in the bank of America. Under my system, he would have had to pay a tax on the transfer of money. But any money he made off of that "investment" would then be totally tax free. The system is that one only pays a tax if one spends/uses/invests/or gives away one's money/wealth.

 

[Ausm]

There is no valid reason other than expediency to have income and private real property as a basis for a tax system.

The 16th Amendment was instituted because the government needed a method of getting revenue when their past source, the production and sale of alcoholic beverages was on the decline and the Congress was fighting the on rush of the 18th Amendment.

Now that we live in a world of computers and most transaction taking place on or recorded on the web, there is no good reason not to end all income tax and taxes on private real property and base our tax system on the use of money/wealth vice the accumulation of money/wealth.

It is NOT regressive at all. The wealthy spend tons more than the poor or middle class so as they do now, they will continue to pay the bulk of the government's revenues.

The example I like to use is....recently Mr. Buffet "invested" $5 billion in the bank of America. Under my system, he would have had to pay a tax on the transfer of money. But any money he made off of that "investment" would then be totally tax free. The system is that one only pays a tax if one spends/uses/invests/or gives away one's money/wealth.

That's laughable at best.

 

[a777pilot]

That's laughable at best.

At least it is a solution. The current income tax system is a big fat failure.

Do you have a suggestion or are you just one of those complainers?

 

[Ausm]

At least it is a solution. The current income tax system is a big fat failure.

Do you have a suggestion or are you just one of those complainers?

I'm not a complainer just pointing out a part of your post that's ludacris

 

[dawp]

I wonder If Cain is a Sim City fan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/herman-cain-999-sim-city_n_1008952.html


Seems the default settings are also 9 9 9 for taxes in the game.

 

[Saint Nick]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here - being a white male that says "about fricken time for a plan like this!". I work hard for my money. And the harder I work, the more money I make. And the more sacrifices I make to my work life over my personal life, the more money I make. And the more risk I take with my money, the more money I make. And yet the more money I make, the more it gets taken from me and given to those who DON'T work as hard - or in many cases - at all. To those that don't sacrifice their home lives. To those that doesn't risk their money at all.

It's not the purpose of the government, or the tax system, to take my money and give it to those less fortunate, less intelligent, less responsible, less dedicated, less hardworking, or less ANYTHING. That's what charities are for - not my tax money. And in a huge volume of these cases, this is not a tragic accident preventing people from working hard. They are simply lazy. Those unhappy with a plan like this are simply unhappy because now they owe something - something that in my opinion have owed all along with rest of us, but have been given a free ride since the beginning. They feel that they are entitled to something that they never should have been entitled to in the first place. It's long overdue for them to pay for the ticket price like the rest of us have been doing all our lives. The thought that because someone doesn't make a certain level income doesn't owe anything for all the services they use to me has always been completely ridiculous. Everyone owes. As is tax credits for having children. The more children you have the more tax credits you get, encouraging a terrible financial situation for those people who simply aren't responsible in the first place, and yet they are rewards for acting irresponsibly.

I'm not a complainer just pointing out a part of your post that's ludacris

At what point was he talking about a rapper???

It's "ludicrous". Careful, your intelligence is showing.

 

[alphatarget1]

And here I thought conservatives were against social engineering via the tax code...

Regressive taxes like this would devastate the economy.

I think I have made it clear that I don't think a simple 9-9-9 taxation plan will solve our nation's fiscal problems. I'm glad that at least someone put forward a plan that gets the conversation going. I would like to see a fair tax code where elements of regressive and progressive taxation are incorporated without making it TOO burdensome on people with lower incomes. We spend a tremendous amount of money/resources just to figure out how much to pay the government in taxes. I remember reading about every dollar collected by the federal government, 40 cents went into accountants. Wouldn't it be nice if that resources is dedicated to something that would improve our standard of living?

We as a society spent money we didn't have, and that is the fault of both Democrats and Republicans. Arguably the politicians did what the voters wanted. SS and medicare/medicaid, all of the programs that Democrats hold dear to, will have to be drastically cut, and taxes for everyone will have to go up if we were to stay fiscally solvent in the future.

 

[halik]

That's laughable at best.

Well not as laughable as it it wrong:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/mh5/research/saving.pdf

People arguing that personal savings goes down (ie consumption goes up) as a function of income are either morons or have agenda to push.

 

[alphatarget1]

I'm not a complainer just pointing out a part of your post that's ludacris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yt849wJyVk

It's ludicrous, not Ludacris the rapper. Looks like you are the one with low IQ. I sure hope you are not a UW student because I have some friends that go there and they are very very smart. You apparently aren't, and you are making your school look bad.

 

[Siddhartha]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here - being a white male that says "about fricken time for a plan like this!". I work hard for my money. And the harder I work, the more money I make. And the more sacrifices I make to my work life over my personal life, the more money I make. And the more risk I take with my money, the more money I make. And yet the more money I make, the more it gets taken from me and given to those who DON'T work as hard - or in many cases - at all. To those that don't sacrifice their home lives. To those that doesn't risk their money at all.

It's not the purpose of the government, or the tax system, to take my money and give it to those less fortunate, less intelligent, less responsible, less dedicated, less hardworking, or less ANYTHING. That's what charities are for - not my tax money. And in a huge volume of these cases, this is not a tragic accident preventing people from working hard. They are simply lazy. Those unhappy with a plan like this are simply unhappy because now they owe something - something that in my opinion have owed all along with rest of us, but have been given a free ride since the beginning. They feel that they are entitled to something that they never should have been entitled to in the first place. It's long overdue for them to pay for the ticket price like the rest of us have been doing all our lives. The thought that because someone doesn't make a certain level income doesn't owe anything for all the services they use to me has always been completely ridiculous. Everyone owes. As is tax credits for having children. The more children you have the more tax credits you get, encouraging a terrible financial situation for those people who simply aren't responsible in the first place, and yet they are rewards for acting irresponsibly.


At what point was he talking about a rapper???

It's "ludicrous". Careful, your intelligence is showing.

You want a tax system which would have you paying less taxes. And you did not want to contribute back to the society that nutured you. Got it.

 

[a777pilot]

Well not as laughable as it it wrong:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/mh5/research/saving.pdf

People arguing that personal savings goes down (ie consumption goes up) as a function of income are either morons or have agenda to push.

That report is not applicable to my tax plan/system. Here's an example why it does not apply.

Let's say you are a wealthy individual and have an annual salary of $10 million. Under my system all of that would be free of any income tax. But what are you going to do with all that money? Under my system if you spend it all, it is all taxed. Now before I continue, let me ask you what you would do with that money to keep it from being taxed?

You're up......

 

[Saint Nick]

You want a tax system which would have you paying less taxes. Got it.

What? The more I work, the more money I make, the more taxes I pay.

 

[xBiffx]

You want a tax system which would have you paying less taxes. Got it.

I don't see anywhere in his post saying he wanted to pay less. He just wants others to pay their fair share. Nowhere does he say he is paying too much, just more than others.

 

[a777pilot]

You want a tax system which would have you paying less taxes. Got it.

I want a tax system that allows me to determine how much I pay in taxes based on what I spend, NOT on what I make.

 

[Siddhartha]

What? The more I work, the more money I make, the more taxes I pay.

"I'm sure I'm in the minority here - being a white male that says "about fricken time for a plan like this!". I work hard for my money. And the harder I work, the more money I make. And the more sacrifices I make to my work life over my personal life, the more money I make. And the more risk I take with my money, the more money I make. And yet the more money I make, the more it gets taken from me and given to those who DON'T work as hard - or in many cases - at all. To those that don't sacrifice their home lives. To those that doesn't risk their money at all."

I re-read the first paragraph of your post. It still sounds like you are saying you are paying too much taxes.

 

[a777pilot]

We are all, those that are actually working, are paying too much in taxes. Even those that work and don't pay income tax are still paying other taxes by the condition of being employed .... are paying too much in taxes.

 

[a777pilot]

Get your thinking away from having income and private real property as the basis for a revenue system.

 

[quest55720]

John Stewart did a nice segment on this. If you took HALF of what the bottom 50% of this country own, you would end up with $700 billion. That's from their networth, not their income. It's false outrage, they pay plenty in other taxes and generate far more than they take in from their productivity.

I am in favor of a 0% federal tax rate for those with the lowest incomes. What I am against is them getting back 1000's of dollars more than they paid in. I don't care about other taxes people pay. That is a state issue for the most part take that up with states who tax to much. Also those taxes they pay don't even come close to paying for things they use like Medicare.

 

[xBiffx]

"I'm sure I'm in the minority here - being a white male that says "about fricken time for a plan like this!". I work hard for my money. And the harder I work, the more money I make. And the more sacrifices I make to my work life over my personal life, the more money I make. And the more risk I take with my money, the more money I make. And yet the more money I make, the more it gets taken from me and given to those who DON'T work as hard - or in many cases - at all. To those that don't sacrifice their home lives. To those that doesn't risk their money at all."

I re-read the first paragraph of your post. It still sounds like you are saying you are paying too much taxes.

Then you need your head examined. The quantity is not the issue, its where the money goes that is the issue.

I for one think I pay about the right amount in tax right now. But when I look at where it is going and compare to what others pay, it doesn't seem fair. For example, and using property tax here, I pay an assload of property tax for my house in IL. Over half of that tax goes to pay for schools. I have no children and hence I use none of this service yet I pay for it. At the same time, there are other families who have several children, yet if they have the same size/value home, they pay the same amount as me. They are getting a seriously greater value from their tax dollar. The only "value" that I may be getting is that I benefit from educated people providing services to me since they used the school system I payed into. Anymore though, this argument is blown right out of the fucking water with the stupid people that I have to interact with when I go to spend my money/use a service they provide.

Basically, its not a question of paying too much overall. Its a question of not paying your fair share.

 

[Thump553]

There is no valid reason other than expediency to have income and private real property as a basis for a tax system.

The 16th Amendment was instituted because the government needed a method of getting revenue when their past source, the production and sale of alcoholic beverages was on the decline and the Congress was fighting the on rush of the 18th Amendment.

Now that we live in a world of computers and most transaction taking place on or recorded on the web, there is no good reason not to end all income tax and taxes on private real property and base our tax system on the use of money/wealth vice the accumulation of money/wealth.

It is NOT regressive at all. The wealthy spend tons more than the poor or middle class so as they do now, they will continue to pay the bulk of the government's revenues.

The example I like to use is....recently Mr. Buffet "invested" $5 billion in the bank of America. Under my system, he would have had to pay a tax on the transfer of money. But any money he made off of that "investment" would then be totally tax free. The system is that one only pays a tax if one spends/uses/invests/or gives away one's money/wealth.

You do realize that your proposal would singlehandedly kill the stock markets and capital investment in general? Noone would buy any stock unless they were sure of at least a 9 percent return, and any company thinking of adding a new machine/production line/location would have to take into account the additional upfront 9% expense.

I think you are going a lot further than Cain, for I can't imagaine any GOP candidate trying to kill their benefactors on Wall Street. The GOP went absolutely hysterical last summer when a very tiny "sales tax" on stock transactions was proposed to pay for the Wall Street reforms-a proposal that was killed.

Cain has a lot of similarities to Ron Paul-both have simple sounding plans that are appealing until you do sixty seconds of analysis about them. They are counting upon people blindly swallowing their BS.

Personally I think the rent's too damn high guy makes more sense.

 

[piasabird]

Most states do not have an income tax over 5%. Just the flat tax of 9% with no exemptions and credits is a tax increase. There should at least be a poverty level below which you do not pay any income tax. How I would change the tax code is that you would not pay taxes on money until after you reach the poverty level. So if the poverty level was say $18,000 then the first $18k would have zero tax and after you reach that point you pay taxes on that.

I think every time some charity gives someone some money, that they should have to report that to the IRS and count that in their total income. I am not against helping the poor, but lets just track their real income and keep everyone honest. I am sure there are people playing the system. It may be so bad with some people that if you add up all their charity, that they need to be paying taxes and they may be inelligible for state aid or federal assistance.

I think Cain just threw some numbers out there that he thought sounded cute without realizing what it would cost or add up to. Some people work for their money and dont have anything of value to show for it. Lets not jump off the cliff of stupidity.

If you take a family of 4 with a $45,000 income and an mortgage, insurance, property taxes then he gets quit a bit of deductions. Especially if someone is going to college or you have to throw in child care costs, 2 cars, etc. With all of the credits and exemptions you might get for 4 people you may only have about $28,000 in adjusted income. So a lot depends on how much money you pay taxes on and what the rate is. If you had to pay taxes on every dime at 9% you may have an increase in taxes.

 

[Zorba]

That report is not applicable to my tax plan/system. Here's an example why it does not apply.

Let's say you are a wealthy individual and have an annual salary of $10 million. Under my system all of that would be free of any income tax. But what are you going to do with all that money? Under my system if you spend it all, it is all taxed. Now before I continue, let me ask you what you would do with that money to keep it from being taxed?

You're up......

Save it? Go on a trip to a foreign country and spend it there? Spend it in the massive black market that will pop up once a national sales tax is created. Donate it. Etc. Etc.

Rich people don't spend any where near all their incomes. Hell I am no where near rich, and I save more than 50% of my household income.

 

[piasabird]

I like the idea of having both an income tax and a sales tax. But I would have thought like a sales tax of 1-2% to supplement the income tax. Even at that certain items may need to be exempt like for automobiles and other items that already have a federal tax like cigarettes, Alcohol, Gas Etc. Maybe people on food stamps would be exempt from the sales tax for food items.

I think that some states have gone overboard on certain taxes. I think the State Gas tax should have a lower maximum that a state can assess. People need Gas to get to work and it is getting rediculous. I think tobacco Tax is also too high. There should be limits to how much any state or municipality can tax any given item. At some point taxes on things just becomes oppressive.

I dont smoke or drink Alcoholic beverages. But I think enough is just enough. What gives the state and the federal government the right to run up a tax so high that a 25 cent pack of ciggarrettes now costs $4.00?

 

[Ausm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yt849wJyVk

It's ludicrous, not Ludacris the rapper. Looks like you are the one with low IQ. I sure hope you are not a UW student because I have some friends that go there and they are very very smart. You apparently aren't, and you are making your school look bad.

Sorry Thx Grammer police

 

[piasabird]

There is no real reason to have a property tax. Maybe property tax should be progressive like income tax. The more property you own the higher your tax! Then no taxes at all if it is your primary residence (Under 4 acres).