We seem to have a lot of anti Cain sentiment on the board so lets put it to the test

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I could vote for Cain, but I think some of his ideas are unrealistic. 9-9-9 being one of them.

But why? WHY is it unrealistic? Because some say it can't be done? People once said it was impossible to sail around the world, to fly, to receive voices or pictures through a wire, to fit a computer into single room, let alone into the palm of your hand. It was once believed that people are incapable of governing themselves or a Constitution such as is enjoyed in America was not possible.

I don't accept that we can't stop the runaway trainwreck that our federal government has become, that there is no better way to do tax policy, I don't accept that the federal government can't be reformed, that we are incapable of doing things differently and better.

I don't know whether 9-9-9 will work, but I do know that Herman Cain is a master mathematician and probably has a good grasp on the numbers. That alone means we should give it an honest hearing before we reject it as 'impractical'.

No one is saying government can't be reformed or shouldn't be reformed. But you are advocating doing what many "conservatives" claim to hate about liberals. You are advocating change for the sake of change. You even admit you don't know if the plan will work! Why throw out the system in place and replace with something that could be worse?

As for the claim Cain is a "master mathematician", if he is, why has he so far released exactly ZERO numbers behind his plan? Why has he released ZERO support and evidence?

Let me guess, we need to elect him to see what's in the plan.

That worked so well for this administration so why not?

The fact remains that you have to have a plan from which you can build something that CAN work. His plan is just that. A base to build from. Unlike Obama who just throws around money all Willy nilly hoping something will stick and work. At least Cain has a plan. All Obama ever offers are.....

New taxes
New fees
New regulations
And scapegoats as to why his non plan plan doesn't work. Just last week he blamed the American people. He is a bonified idiot. All that shit he offers looks great on paper but when you try to implement it into action it fails miserably. Just like his whole presidency.

Tax, tax, tax, rich people, corporate jets, atms, mother nature,
Wallstreet, hurricanes, airport kiosks, republicans, tea party, Europe, etc, etc

He has 0 concept of accountability

 

[rightwinger]

Cain!

Khan!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54[/ame]

 

[clevergirl]

Cain's 999 a fair and balanced analysis.

link

Limit all personal income taxes (including SS / Medicare) to 9%

Reduce Corporate Taxes to 9%

Introduce a national sales tax of 9%

Phase II would be to eliminate the personal income tax and the Corporate Income Tax and replace them both with the "Fair Tax"

Cain's brochure claims that the plan is revenue neutral, which would mean that it would generate a similar amount to the current Federal Revenues of about $2.162 Trillion. At first glance it seems difficult to fathom. It fortunately it isn't difficult to test this contention. We'll simply assume zero deductions and multiply the aggregate totals of each sector by 9%.

Our best, or perhaps most optimistic, estimate of aggregate U.S. personal income comes from University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research. According to UNM's BBE - total personal income in 2011 will be $12.590 Trillion.

 

[rightwinger]

Cain's 999 a fair and balanced analysis.

link

Limit all personal income taxes (including SS / Medicare) to 9%

Reduce Corporate Taxes to 9%

Introduce a national sales tax of 9%

Phase II would be to eliminate the personal income tax and the Corporate Income Tax and replace them both with the "Fair Tax"

Cain's brochure claims that the plan is revenue neutral, which would mean that it would generate a similar amount to the current Federal Revenues of about $2.162 Trillion. At first glance it seems difficult to fathom. It fortunately it isn't difficult to test this contention. We'll simply assume zero deductions and multiply the aggregate totals of each sector by 9%.

Our best, or perhaps most optimistic, estimate of aggregate U.S. personal income comes from University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research. According to UNM's BBE - total personal income in 2011 will be $12.590 Trillion.

Followup to a previous post....

How much additional money would Cain make using the 999 plan?

Would someone making $25,000 a year pay more or less under Cains plan?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I could vote for Cain, but I think some of his ideas are unrealistic. 9-9-9 being one of them.

But why? WHY is it unrealistic? Because some say it can't be done? People once said it was impossible to sail around the world, to fly, to receive voices or pictures through a wire, to fit a computer into single room, let alone into the palm of your hand. It was once believed that people are incapable of governing themselves or a Constitution such as is enjoyed in America was not possible.

I don't accept that we can't stop the runaway trainwreck that our federal government has become, that there is no better way to do tax policy, I don't accept that the federal government can't be reformed, that we are incapable of doing things differently and better.

I don't know whether 9-9-9 will work, but I do know that Herman Cain is a master mathematician and probably has a good grasp on the numbers. That alone means we should give it an honest hearing before we reject it as 'impractical'.

No one is saying government can't be reformed or shouldn't be reformed. But you are advocating doing what many "conservatives" claim to hate about liberals. You are advocating change for the sake of change. You even admit you don't know if the plan will work! Why throw out the system in place and replace with something that could be worse?

As for the claim Cain is a "master mathematician", if he is, why has he so far released exactly ZERO numbers behind his plan? Why has he released ZERO support and evidence?

Let me guess, we need to elect him to see what's in the plan.

Because the corruption woven into the economy via the current tax code is killing us.


Simple and fair taxes, a budget balanced by law and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cain's 999 a fair and balanced analysis.

link

Limit all personal income taxes (including SS / Medicare) to 9%

Reduce Corporate Taxes to 9%

Introduce a national sales tax of 9%

Phase II would be to eliminate the personal income tax and the Corporate Income Tax and replace them both with the "Fair Tax"

Cain's brochure claims that the plan is revenue neutral, which would mean that it would generate a similar amount to the current Federal Revenues of about $2.162 Trillion. At first glance it seems difficult to fathom. It fortunately it isn't difficult to test this contention. We'll simply assume zero deductions and multiply the aggregate totals of each sector by 9%.

Our best, or perhaps most optimistic, estimate of aggregate U.S. personal income comes from University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research. According to UNM's BBE - total personal income in 2011 will be $12.590 Trillion.

Followup to a previous post....

How much additional money would Cain make using the 999 plan?

Would someone making $25,000 a year pay more or less under Cains plan?

I don't know and I don't care as long as it is not oppressive and is equitable. The person making $10,000 or $25,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 or $25 million should have an equal stake in the system with everybody else and should be paying proportionately the same amount as much as possible.

There is too much temptation to vote for the one who promises to screw the other guy and let you out of any responsibility for supporting the government. With everybody reaping the same percentage of benefit or experiencing the same consequences for whatever tax policy is involved, everybody will have incentive to vote for the best policy for everybody instead of for whomever will keep the gravy train rolling for themselves.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have nothing against Cain as a person. I'm sure he's very nice and would be fun to sit down with and have a pizza.

But his policies are terrible. I mean, REALLY, terrible. There are areas that Obama needs to improve, but Cain is just ... terrible.

Care to elaborate? beyond the 9-9-9 rhetoric

What more do I need to say? His 9-9-9 plan encourages consumers to NOT spend money. That's a terrible idea for helping get the economy going. Couple that with cuts for the wealthy and increases for the poor, and it's just not going to help the country get better.

The most unfair tax to individuals with high income streams is an income tax.

THAT is why the wealthy are so eager to spend such a large percentage of their hard earned income on the political power to required create loopholes and deductions.



The MOST unfair tax on a person making just enough to survive month to month is a consumption tax.



The most FAIR tax to all Americans is a blend of both at a half the rate that either tax would require on its own.

9% income + 9% consumption.

As long as BOTH parties are specifically kept from watering it down with deductions, credits and favoritism, it will remain fair.

 

[DontBeStupid]

But why? WHY is it unrealistic? Because some say it can't be done? People once said it was impossible to sail around the world, to fly, to receive voices or pictures through a wire, to fit a computer into single room, let alone into the palm of your hand. It was once believed that people are incapable of governing themselves or a Constitution such as is enjoyed in America was not possible.

I don't accept that we can't stop the runaway trainwreck that our federal government has become, that there is no better way to do tax policy, I don't accept that the federal government can't be reformed, that we are incapable of doing things differently and better.

I don't know whether 9-9-9 will work, but I do know that Herman Cain is a master mathematician and probably has a good grasp on the numbers. That alone means we should give it an honest hearing before we reject it as 'impractical'.

No one is saying government can't be reformed or shouldn't be reformed. But you are advocating doing what many "conservatives" claim to hate about liberals. You are advocating change for the sake of change. You even admit you don't know if the plan will work! Why throw out the system in place and replace with something that could be worse?

As for the claim Cain is a "master mathematician", if he is, why has he so far released exactly ZERO numbers behind his plan? Why has he released ZERO support and evidence?

Let me guess, we need to elect him to see what's in the plan.

You will be hard put to find where at ANY time in ANY place in ANY forum I have advocated change for the sake of change. So you're full of it the first rattle out of the box.

Further you can't show at any place or any time or in any context that I have advocated replacing anything with something worse or without doing the necessary homework to competently predict the odds of success. Not doing very well here are you.

Cain not only has a degree in mathematics but a master's degree in computer science which is heavily math based in the practical application end. And there are a whole lot of folks coming up with lots and lots of numbers if his plan isn't specific enough for you. It is impossible to release support and evidence for something that has not been tried before. But Cain's track record as a competent executive suggests that he won't push to do something of that magnitude without plenty of study and logical rationale to support it.

The current system has the economy stalled and is saddling this and generations to come with ever increasing crushing debt.

Only the numbnuts won't at least look to see if something new and different has merit.

Bravo! Nice speech! Of course, you once again did NOT talk about how Cain's plan is better than the system we have in place. You did claim the current system "has the economy stalled", but of course, it's the same system we had in '05 and '06, so how come it worked then but not now? You kind of failed to talk about that.

Oh, you claimed "It is impossible to release support and evidence for something that has not been tried before. " which is interesting, since the "conservatives" were demanding Obama do that for the Affordable Care Act, yet now you claim it is impossible to do. Rather interesting.

Anyway, like I said, nice speech, but it changes nothing. You are still advocating changing to a system while providing exactly ZERO reasons to change other than "The current system has the economy stalled".

Sorry, but it's rather obvious. You want to change just to change.

 

[Liability]

Care to elaborate? beyond the 9-9-9 rhetoric

What more do I need to say? His 9-9-9 plan encourages consumers to NOT spend money. That's a terrible idea for helping get the economy going. Couple that with cuts for the wealthy and increases for the poor, and it's just not going to help the country get better.

The most unfair tax to individuals with high income streams is an income tax.

THAT is why the wealthy are so eager to spend such a large percentage of their hard earned income on the political power to required create loopholes and deductions.



The MOST unfair tax on a person making just enough to survive month to month is a consumption tax.



The most FAIR tax to all Americans is a blend of both at a half the rate that either tax would require on its own.

9% income + 9% consumption.

As long as BOTH parties are specifically kept from watering it down with deductions, credits and favoritism, it will remain fair.

I am not a huge fan of that 999 plan. I don't want to start any new kind of taxation without Constitutionally eliminating the chance of having both the old and the new form, in fact. It is otherwise too easy for weak-willed and weak-minded politicians to just reach deeper into our wallets.

I favor a flat tax OR the Fair tax, but I favor a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw the income tax if we ever go the route of imposing any kind of ad valorem taxation to the mix.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one is saying government can't be reformed or shouldn't be reformed. But you are advocating doing what many "conservatives" claim to hate about liberals. You are advocating change for the sake of change. You even admit you don't know if the plan will work! Why throw out the system in place and replace with something that could be worse?

As for the claim Cain is a "master mathematician", if he is, why has he so far released exactly ZERO numbers behind his plan? Why has he released ZERO support and evidence?

Let me guess, we need to elect him to see what's in the plan.

You will be hard put to find where at ANY time in ANY place in ANY forum I have advocated change for the sake of change. So you're full of it the first rattle out of the box.

Further you can't show at any place or any time or in any context that I have advocated replacing anything with something worse or without doing the necessary homework to competently predict the odds of success. Not doing very well here are you.

Cain not only has a degree in mathematics but a master's degree in computer science which is heavily math based in the practical application end. And there are a whole lot of folks coming up with lots and lots of numbers if his plan isn't specific enough for you. It is impossible to release support and evidence for something that has not been tried before. But Cain's track record as a competent executive suggests that he won't push to do something of that magnitude without plenty of study and logical rationale to support it.

The current system has the economy stalled and is saddling this and generations to come with ever increasing crushing debt.

Only the numbnuts won't at least look to see if something new and different has merit.

Bravo! Nice speech! Of course, you once again did NOT talk about how Cain's plan is better than the system we have in place. You did claim the current system "has the economy stalled", but of course, it's the same system we had in '05 and '06, so how come it worked then but not now? You kind of failed to talk about that.

Oh, you claimed "It is impossible to release support and evidence for something that has not been tried before. " which is interesting, since the "conservatives" were demanding Obama do that for the Affordable Care Act, yet now you claim it is impossible to do. Rather interesting.

Anyway, like I said, nice speech, but it changes nothing. You are still advocating changing to a system while providing exactly ZERO reasons to change other than "The current system has the economy stalled".

Sorry, but it's rather obvious. You want to change just to change.

And again you completely missed the point or demonstrated a reading deficiency problem. But stupid is as stupid does so carry on.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Cain's 999 a fair and balanced analysis.

link

Limit all personal income taxes (including SS / Medicare) to 9%

Reduce Corporate Taxes to 9%

Introduce a national sales tax of 9%

Phase II would be to eliminate the personal income tax and the Corporate Income Tax and replace them both with the "Fair Tax"

Cain's brochure claims that the plan is revenue neutral, which would mean that it would generate a similar amount to the current Federal Revenues of about $2.162 Trillion. At first glance it seems difficult to fathom. It fortunately it isn't difficult to test this contention. We'll simply assume zero deductions and multiply the aggregate totals of each sector by 9%.

Our best, or perhaps most optimistic, estimate of aggregate U.S. personal income comes from University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research. According to UNM's BBE - total personal income in 2011 will be $12.590 Trillion.

Followup to a previous post....

How much additional money would Cain make using the 999 plan?

Would someone making $25,000 a year pay more or less under Cains plan?

I don't know and I don't care as long as it is not oppressive and is equitable.

But how do you know it's not oppressive and is equitable if you haven't look at ANY of the specifics behind the plan?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Care to elaborate? beyond the 9-9-9 rhetoric

What more do I need to say? His 9-9-9 plan encourages consumers to NOT spend money. That's a terrible idea for helping get the economy going. Couple that with cuts for the wealthy and increases for the poor, and it's just not going to help the country get better.

Kinda like how welfare and endless unemployment checks encourage people NOT to look for work?
His plan may not be perfect but no plan ever is in its initial conception. It is however a good base to start from. It would certainly cause businesses to explode with the lower taxes.

Welfare and unemployment are spending issues and should be administered under a budget that is balanced by law.

Taxation is a revenue issue and taxes should be simple and fair.

The two types of government activity ARE mutually exclusive. Welfare and other spending should NEVER come in the form of a tax credit or tax exemption.

If it appears stupid to collect 9% on some poor suckers meager salary of $9,000 and then turn around and give him welfare money it should. The answer is to let EVERYone earn their first $13,000 free of any income taxes.

As long as a law applies to EVERYone the same, it's fair.

 

[Liability]

You will be hard put to find where at ANY time in ANY place in ANY forum I have advocated change for the sake of change. So you're full of it the first rattle out of the box.

Further you can't show at any place or any time or in any context that I have advocated replacing anything with something worse or without doing the necessary homework to competently predict the odds of success. Not doing very well here are you.

Cain not only has a degree in mathematics but a master's degree in computer science which is heavily math based in the practical application end. And there are a whole lot of folks coming up with lots and lots of numbers if his plan isn't specific enough for you. It is impossible to release support and evidence for something that has not been tried before. But Cain's track record as a competent executive suggests that he won't push to do something of that magnitude without plenty of study and logical rationale to support it.

The current system has the economy stalled and is saddling this and generations to come with ever increasing crushing debt.

Only the numbnuts won't at least look to see if something new and different has merit.

Bravo! Nice speech! Of course, you once again did NOT talk about how Cain's plan is better than the system we have in place. You did claim the current system "has the economy stalled", but of course, it's the same system we had in '05 and '06, so how come it worked then but not now? You kind of failed to talk about that.

Oh, you claimed "It is impossible to release support and evidence for something that has not been tried before. " which is interesting, since the "conservatives" were demanding Obama do that for the Affordable Care Act, yet now you claim it is impossible to do. Rather interesting.

Anyway, like I said, nice speech, but it changes nothing. You are still advocating changing to a system while providing exactly ZERO reasons to change other than "The current system has the economy stalled".

Sorry, but it's rather obvious. You want to change just to change.

And again you completely missed the point or demonstrated a reading deficiency problem. But stupid is as stupid does so carry on.

Well. It is not as though Can'tHelpButBeStupid wanted to actually acknowledge the point ....

 

[rightwinger]

Cain's 999 a fair and balanced analysis.

link

Limit all personal income taxes (including SS / Medicare) to 9%

Reduce Corporate Taxes to 9%

Introduce a national sales tax of 9%

Phase II would be to eliminate the personal income tax and the Corporate Income Tax and replace them both with the "Fair Tax"

Cain's brochure claims that the plan is revenue neutral, which would mean that it would generate a similar amount to the current Federal Revenues of about $2.162 Trillion. At first glance it seems difficult to fathom. It fortunately it isn't difficult to test this contention. We'll simply assume zero deductions and multiply the aggregate totals of each sector by 9%.

Our best, or perhaps most optimistic, estimate of aggregate U.S. personal income comes from University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research. According to UNM's BBE - total personal income in 2011 will be $12.590 Trillion.

Followup to a previous post....

How much additional money would Cain make using the 999 plan?

Would someone making $25,000 a year pay more or less under Cains plan?

I don't know and I don't care as long as it is not oppressive and is equitable. The person making $10,000 or $25,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 or $25 million should have an equal stake in the system with everybody else and should be paying proportionately the same amount as much as possible.

There is too much temptation to vote for the one who promises to screw the other guy and let you out of any responsibility for supporting the government. With everybody reaping the same percentage of benefit or experiencing the same consequences for whatever tax policy is involved, everybody will have incentive to vote for the best policy for everybody instead of for whomever will keep the gravy train rolling for themselves.

So you favor a plan that would shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the working poor as long as you can label it "fair"

We know that Cain does

 

[DontBeStupid]

And again you completely missed the point or demonstrated a reading deficiency problem. But stupid is as stupid does so carry on.

Then explain it to me. Explain it to all of us.

How is Cain's 9-9-9 plan better for the economy than the current system we have?

 

[Greenbeard]

I could vote for Cain, but I think some of his ideas are unrealistic. 9-9-9 being one of them.

I got something that's going to blow that right out of the water: the 8-8-8 plan.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeHVYuRnIjY]7 Minute Abs[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

Simple, If Cain wins the nomination will you vote for him or Obama?

I could vote for Cain, but I think some of his ideas are unrealistic. 9-9-9 being one of them.

But why? WHY is it unrealistic? Because some say it can't be done? People once said it was impossible to sail around the world...

I don't know whether 9-9-9 will work, but I do know that Herman Cain is a master mathematician and probably has a good grasp on the numbers. That alone means we should give it an honest hearing before we reject it as 'impractical'.

Well, there's a couple of things.

First, we've heard variants of this before, such as Huck's "Fair Tax". The reason why it would be a bad idea is once you slap a 9% sales tax on everything, people will buy less stuff. And, yes, I know, you'll cut income taxes to compensate, but human nature being what it is, that means people will just do more things underground or put off purchases.

Second, there are way too many people who benefit from teh current system, and they will fight tooth and nail against major changes.

There is a reason why the tax code is volumes of pages. Every section in there, someone wanted and lobbied for.

Maybe the math will work, but the politics never will.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What more do I need to say? His 9-9-9 plan encourages consumers to NOT spend money. That's a terrible idea for helping get the economy going. Couple that with cuts for the wealthy and increases for the poor, and it's just not going to help the country get better.

9-9-9 is not a perfect plan and I have my own concerns with it, but it is a far better solution than our current mess of a tax system which not even the IRS understands. It will most definitely get the economy moving again, that's for sure.

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

 

[AVG-JOE]

9-9-9 is not a perfect plan and I have my own concerns with it, but it is a far better solution than our current mess of a tax system which not even the IRS understands. It will most definitely get the economy moving again, that's for sure.

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

I'll say this much? Something is needed to get us out of the 16th Amendment, because it is nothing but a tool for government to penalize people whom excell.

We were doing pretty good until the Progressives crafted the 16th...and even that was supposed to be temporary. I'd say a century isn't temporary.
It was a lie.

The fair answer is a blend of consumption and income taxes.

 

[DontBeStupid]

9-9-9 is not a perfect plan and I have my own concerns with it, but it is a far better solution than our current mess of a tax system which not even the IRS understands. It will most definitely get the economy moving again, that's for sure.

Yep. I have 'issues' with the whole 'national sales tax' thing... because it's been tried elsewhere and ends up being used as a 'snatch and grab' every time a government needs more money. Look at Britain as a great example of a good idea that worked out really bad for the taxpayer.

The trick is to tie the numbers together with a band of titanium.

9% income + 9% sales to high? Move to 8% + 8%.

Natural disaster strike? Need to increase revenue? Move to 10% + 10%

As I said earlier, income taxes are unfair to high income folks and low income folks are disadvantaged by consumption taxes. Keep it simple. Keep it fair.

And Cain's plan won't tax capital gains. Which means a wealthy person who earns his income from capital gains will pay exactly $0 in income taxes.

How is that fair?