Tax Policy Center delivers haymaker to 9 - 9 - 9

[Oddball]

27% rate?
You are assuming all people will spend every penny they make and all people own a corporation...

And actually, if everyone spends every penny they make, it is really spending only 91% of their income so the tax on that would be 9% of 91% of income PLUS 9% of income

Unless I misunderstood what you are saying.

Yes, 27% rate....Slightly lower if you have a savings plan.

Corporate taxes get passed along to consumers in terms of higher prices or workers in lower wages, so you'll be paying that 9% too.

And the current corporate tax rate is what?

Prices will go down and wages will go up.

Irrelevant to the fact that the end effective federal rate will be 27%....The framers have to be doing back flips in their graves.

Does nothing to address the current insane level of federal spending.

Does nothing to address the impending train wrecks of Medicare and SS.

Will give us taxes on both incomes and sales, which will inevitably be jacked up....For the chiiiilllllldrrrreeeeennnnn, dontchaknow?

Will require a not-a-snowball's-chance-in-hell constitutional amendment.

Is just a Trojan horse to foist the goofy "fair tax" scam on the populace.

Doesn't matter what the wonks and think tanks say, Cain's plan is DOA.

 

[Jarhead]

Taxes are deemed as operating costs and thus are passed along to the consumer in price....Period.

I agree wholeheartedly....and have known that to be fact since I was in college.....

So why does the left continually say that increasing taxes on corporations will have no affect on prices and such is nothing but rhetoric by the corporation loving GOP..

And furthermore, why is that not a topic of conversation as it pertains to increasing taxes on the wealthy business owners?

Because business owners can't pass all of tax along to consumers - and an increase in income taxes doesn't impact the unit cost of producing a good. In a competitive market, that means that the owner can't make up all of that revenue through increased prices.

I've known that since college!

A business owner works backwards from his/her personal bottom line.
Furthermore, in a competative market...certainly pure competitive market...and most certainly in an oligopoly, an accross the board increase to all in that market means they most certainly can AND WILL pass it along to the consumer.

Ive known THAT since college.

(your turn)

 

[Jarhead]

The study ignores the price decreases from making tax compliance and financial planning efficient.

It's incorrectly taking a static view of high earners.

I highly doubt any manufacturer will decrease the price of its goods due to a decrease in accounting costs.
Same holds true for a distributer, a retailer, and a vendor to the manufacturer.

When was the last time we saw prices decrease other than commodities and products that are on the verge of being replaced by newer versions...such as x-box?

Well, not to be contrarian but...I like to be contrarian!

1 GB of memory cost in excess of a billion dollars in 1960.
In 1990, it probably cost a thousand.
in 2000, a couple hundred.

Today you can buy 1 GB of memory on a jump drive for $10.

A 50 inch TV cost $2000 or so in 1980 - in nominal dollars!
It's now under $700 for much better quality picture.

lol...always need to be a dickhead.

Yes.....that is true...prices DO decrease once the cost of R and D is more than paid for.
Original prices are based on manufacturing costs AND R and D...and once R and D is paid off, costs are based on manufactureing costs.

You are correct.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When one pays no federal income tax (well.. more than one... more like ~48% of the citizenry)... of course having a standard tax that will apply to everyone will mean there is an increase for many...

They should have been paying federal income tax like others in the first place... you know... that little thingy called equal treatment by law under government

Exactly why I laugh at those that act like "look what I uncovered" ...

It is not rocket science to know that a flat tax would mean the wealthier will pay less than they do now and the less wealthy will pay more.

What I am curious about is the capital gains tax...are all cap gains going to be deemed as income and taxed at 9%?

If yes, then I just cant see how this 9-9-9 plan will be deficit neutral.

His plan does not tax capital gains.

How typical (for an average high-roller).

He must have borrowed Steve Forbes' plan.....​

YEP!!!​

"In the 1990s, the Big Idea was the Flat Tax, promoted by the presidential campaigns of magazine executive Steve Forbes. The Forbes plan derived from a program cooked up by two Hoover Institution fellows, Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka. Their idea was to replace the multiple brackets and deductions of the tax code with a straight 19% levy.

As Bankman observed in 1995, even as Hall and Rabushka were claiming that their tax was "the fairest tax of all" because it treated all income earners pretty much the same, they acknowledged that it would be "a tremendous boon to the economic elite from the start."

Mostly this was because it cut the top rate from nearly 40% and exempted investment income — interest and dividends — from the individual tax. Inevitably, this meant a shift in the tax burden onto wage income, which of course constitutes a much larger proportion of income of those at the lower end of the scale."

 

[DiamondDave]

no tax at all or is it deemed as regular income and taxed at 9%?

That is the question I would have.. and I would agree to tax it the same as any other income (really, no matter what the flat rate would be)... I would not agree to leave capital gains untaxed

Or you could reject the notion that any incomes should be taxed and concentrate on the fact that the feds SPEND to damned much.

Oh.. I am all about reduction in spending and I agree we spend too much... but I do think that we should have taxation, an equal system, where the needed expenses of government are taken care of

 

[ClosedCaption]

I can not see how that plan can do anything but the following:

Make the rich even richer without lifting a finger
Make the poor even poorer
Wind up increasing the deficit and thus the debt...even if spending is cut.

Whereas I admire the effort, this plan is DOA.

So what you saying is that its a GOP's trickle down wet dream

No...you said that.

What I am saying is that I admire the effort...but I just dont think it will work.

Unlike people such as you who refuse to ever recognoize an error by the democrats....I am willing to admit when I believe a GOP idea is going to be a failure

link?

 

[auditor0007]

Whoa. See what some of us were trying to tell you?


Study: Cain Tax Plan Raises Taxes on 84 Percent


"Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday, contradicting claims by the Republican presidential candidate that most Americans would see a tax cut.


The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, says low- and middle-income families would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent....

Households with the highest incomes, however, would get big tax cuts. Those making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes cut nearly in half, on average, according to the analysis...."

Read more: Study: Cain Tax Plan Raises Taxes On 84 Percent | Fox News

I've been saying this since Herman came out with this idiotic plan. 9-9-9 is extremely regressive. It's such a bad plan, it would be better dubbed 6-6-6. Give Cain a set of horns and a pitch fork, and show him with a big smile.

 

[Navy1960]

Cain's 9-9-9 plan while an attempt it is perhaps not the best way to approach it, in my humble opinion. It would seem to me the most glaring thing about it is the additional 9% Sales Tax on top whatever your state tax is. If anyone believes for a moment in the assumption that goods and services will be reduuced in cost and the additional 9% is basically an offset according to the theory, then they have not been watching lately. Companies these day's tend to keep "extra money" and not pass that along to the consumer. What is passed to the consumer is "cost". So while I admire Cain's attempt it is perhaps not the best way to approach it.

You don't think long distance rates have gone down due to lower costs and competition?

How about peak cell phone usage?

An additional Federal Sales tax lowered that cost exactly how? Yes there should be more competetion am all for that because that does lower costs.

So let’s look at some numbers that John Sicher, the publisher of Beverage Digest, a trade publication, came up with for the NYT: A two-liter bottle of soda, at 67.6 ounces, sells currently for about $1.35. If there was a tax levied, and it were passed on to consumers, the two-liter price would cost 50% more, Sicher points out, and a 12-can case of soda, currently at $3.20, would cost about 45% more. It sounds like a lot
Calculating the True Cost of a Soda Tax - Health Blog - WSJ


As for competetion, today there is even less competetion and I fail to see how his 9-9-9 plan will do anything to reverse the sheer volume of mergers, and buyouts in this nation that lessen competition.

 

[RDD_1210]

When one pays no federal income tax (well.. more than one... more like ~48% of the citizenry)... of course having a standard tax that will apply to everyone will mean there is an increase for many...

They should have been paying federal income tax like others in the first place... you know... that little thingy called equal treatment by law under government

So I assume you were in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

I am only in favor of an equal flat tax on every dollar earned with no exceptions, no loopholes, etc.. .all other things are just masks for votes

So do you like the Cain plan?

 

[Oddball]

That is the question I would have.. and I would agree to tax it the same as any other income (really, no matter what the flat rate would be)... I would not agree to leave capital gains untaxed

Or you could reject the notion that any incomes should be taxed and concentrate on the fact that the feds SPEND to damned much.

Oh.. I am all about reduction in spending and I agree we spend too much... but I do think that we should have taxation, an equal system, where the needed expenses of government are taken care of

Imposts, duties, excises and user fees.

Taxes on incomes have turned out to be nothing more than a political/ social engineering tool for rewarding friends and "correct" behavior, while punishing enemies and "incorrect" behavior.

One need look no further than the divide-and-conquer tactics of the current regime and their little toadies in congress to see this.

 

[DiamondDave]

Of COURSE its a plan that can not work.

It depends on MYTHICAL TAX LOOPHOLES being closed.

Okay, WHAT tax loopholes will be closed by this plan?

Anybody want to tell me?

Of course not.

Not one of you to date has even bothered to ask yourselves WHAT LOOPHOLES are these moron talking about?

Corporate Jets?

No. To close that loophole would be CLASS WAR, right?

How about the LOOPHOLE that pays oil companies to drill for oil?

Any conservative here who advocates closing that "loophole"?

No, of course not.

You folks here who are GUESSING about macroeconomic and taxes are splendid examples of why some of our MASTERS are crypto-authoritarians.

They KNOW you fools will buy any narrative that appeals to your own personal conceits, and not one of you thinks CRITICALLY about the POVs that have been drummed into your tiny little brains.

That's easy... scrap the whole tax code system and put this as a no exceptions flat tax... not rocket science to see that this is better than going thru and listing the hundreds and thousands of loopholes and arguing over them

 

[8537]

I agree wholeheartedly....and have known that to be fact since I was in college.....

So why does the left continually say that increasing taxes on corporations will have no affect on prices and such is nothing but rhetoric by the corporation loving GOP..

And furthermore, why is that not a topic of conversation as it pertains to increasing taxes on the wealthy business owners?

Because business owners can't pass all of tax along to consumers - and an increase in income taxes doesn't impact the unit cost of producing a good. In a competitive market, that means that the owner can't make up all of that revenue through increased prices.

I've known that since college!

A business owner works backwards from his/her personal bottom line.
Furthermore, in a competative market...certainly pure competitive market...and most certainly in an oligopoly, an accross the board increase to all in that market means they most certainly can AND WILL pass it along to the consumer.

Ive known THAT since college.

(your turn)

No, in a truly competitive market where the demand is more elastic than the supply, the firm can't pass along the majority of the tax to the consumer. The consumer isn't willing o pay the increased cost and revenues fall. Instead, they must pay the majority of the tax out of profits, capital investments, labor or distributed earnings.

If the tax on gasoline goes up, the consumer bears almost the entire tax in the short run.
If the tax on twinkies goes up, the producer will bear most of the tax in the short run because people will shift to buying Hostess Cup cakes.

 

[DiamondDave]

So I assume you were in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

I am only in favor of an equal flat tax on every dollar earned with no exceptions, no loopholes, etc.. .all other things are just masks for votes

So do you like the Cain plan?

Not if it does not include capital gains and all income

 

[8537]

I highly doubt any manufacturer will decrease the price of its goods due to a decrease in accounting costs.
Same holds true for a distributer, a retailer, and a vendor to the manufacturer.

When was the last time we saw prices decrease other than commodities and products that are on the verge of being replaced by newer versions...such as x-box?

Well, not to be contrarian but...I like to be contrarian!

1 GB of memory cost in excess of a billion dollars in 1960.
In 1990, it probably cost a thousand.
in 2000, a couple hundred.

Today you can buy 1 GB of memory on a jump drive for $10.

A 50 inch TV cost $2000 or so in 1980 - in nominal dollars!
It's now under $700 for much better quality picture.

lol...always need to be a dickhead.

Yes.....that is true...prices DO decrease once the cost of R and D is more than paid for.
Original prices are based on manufacturing costs AND R and D...and once R and D is paid off, costs are based on manufactureing costs.

You are correct.

I understood your broader point. I was just fucking with ya.

Speaking of points..I need to get some work done!

 

[Jarhead]

So what you saying is that its a GOP's trickle down wet dream

No...you said that.

What I am saying is that I admire the effort...but I just dont think it will work.

Unlike people such as you who refuse to ever recognoize an error by the democrats....I am willing to admit when I believe a GOP idea is going to be a failure

link?

I can post a link to USMB but I have a better idea.

Just answer these questions...and feel free to add to each answer your rationalization if you wish:

Did the stimulus NOT do what the administration and the democrats promised it would do?
Did Holder NOT offer up the truth when asked about when he knew of Fast and Furious?
Did Pelosi WRONGLY accuse the Tea Partyers as "mobs and thugs"?
Did Obama WRONGLY offer his opinion on a police arrest after the arrest?
Did Barney Frank DROP THE BALL as it pertained to his job of overseeing Fannie and Freddie?

Lets start with those.

 

[Jarhead]

Because business owners can't pass all of tax along to consumers - and an increase in income taxes doesn't impact the unit cost of producing a good. In a competitive market, that means that the owner can't make up all of that revenue through increased prices.

I've known that since college!

A business owner works backwards from his/her personal bottom line.
Furthermore, in a competative market...certainly pure competitive market...and most certainly in an oligopoly, an accross the board increase to all in that market means they most certainly can AND WILL pass it along to the consumer.

Ive known THAT since college.

(your turn)

No, in a truly competitive market where the demand is more elastic than the supply, the firm can't pass along the majority of the tax to the consumer. The consumer isn't willing o pay the increased cost and revenues fall. Instead, they must pay the majority of the tax out of profits, capital investments, labor or distributed earnings.

If the tax on gasoline goes up, the consumer bears almost the entire tax in the short run.
If the tax on twinkies goes up, the producer will bear most of the tax in the short run because people will shift to buying Hostess Cup cakes.

ah....but you left out the most important part of what I said..."an accross the board" increase...

Hostess cup cakes will ALSO raise their prices my friend.

 

[Jarhead]

Well, not to be contrarian but...I like to be contrarian!

1 GB of memory cost in excess of a billion dollars in 1960.
In 1990, it probably cost a thousand.
in 2000, a couple hundred.

Today you can buy 1 GB of memory on a jump drive for $10.

A 50 inch TV cost $2000 or so in 1980 - in nominal dollars!
It's now under $700 for much better quality picture.

lol...always need to be a dickhead.

Yes.....that is true...prices DO decrease once the cost of R and D is more than paid for.
Original prices are based on manufacturing costs AND R and D...and once R and D is paid off, costs are based on manufactureing costs.

You are correct.

I understood your broader point. I was just fucking with ya.

Speaking of points..I need to get some work done!

watch your lanuage dickhead.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When one pays no federal income tax (well.. more than one... more like ~48% of the citizenry)... of course having a standard tax that will apply to everyone will mean there is an increase for many...

They should have been paying federal income tax like others in the first place... you know... that little thingy called equal treatment by law under government

So I assume you were in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

I am only in favor of an equal flat tax on every dollar earned with no exceptions, no loopholes, etc.. .all other things are just masks for votes

Ohhhhhhhhh.....you mean "masks" like.....

.....paying-DOWN the Federal-DEBT??

I guess that'd be the best "mask" for the Clintons to use.....in the 2016 Election....that'll put them BACK IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!!!!!

. . . . ​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The article does not address local, city, county, state income nor sales taxes. Where do these apply? Or did I miss this detail? Thanks.

They are legislated at the local, city, county, and state level. 999 is a federal tax plan. If you pay an 8% state sales tax on certain items, if they are taxable under Cain's plan, you would pay 17% on the same items, barring any change in your state tax law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whoa. See what some of us were trying to tell you?


Study: Cain Tax Plan Raises Taxes on 84 Percent


"Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday, contradicting claims by the Republican presidential candidate that most Americans would see a tax cut.


The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, says low- and middle-income families would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent....

Households with the highest incomes, however, would get big tax cuts. Those making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes cut nearly in half, on average, according to the analysis...."

Read more: Study: Cain Tax Plan Raises Taxes On 84 Percent | Fox News

Washington think tank pointing out dimwit talking points, really? Believability is no where in sight on this post, as usual.

Then calculate your own taxes under Cain's plan and tell us how your own taxes would change.

Of course you'll have to tell us roughly what you earn and how many dependents you have, so we can see how you did your calculation.

In fact, all of you should do this. You don't have to post it, but be honest with yourself. I calculated mine -

I would break even, approximately, on a middle income type salary, BUT, I have zero dependents and NONE of the current deductions that those with dependents have,

all of which disappear under the Cain plan.