Herman Cains plan? 9-9-9 For those that hate it

[BenNatuf]

That makes sense. So if we were to get to zero taxes, just for the sake of argument, it would only have an effect for so long then, right?

notionally yes. Tax cuts only spur growth when they're cuts. When they become the norm they are just "normal" and spur no growth, they just don't impede it. Thats why since Obama signed the extension of the Bush tax cuts the economy has stabalized but not been spurred. Bush's cuts in the 4 years after they were enacted helped in the creation of 8M jobs, how long would you consider a tax cut is a tax cut instead of just being the tax rate? Taxes have been the same for about 9 years now, when your tax rate is the same for nine years in a row keeping them the same is not a cut and will spur no growth.

Sounds as though you're making an argument that it is a psychological effect.

Not even close. When tax cuts first take effect they people and business' have more money than they did before they take effect, over time that additional money gets incorporated into thier normal spending habits and becomes the new norm. after 4 or 5 years the stimulative effect is gone as to stimulate the economy you have to pump something new into it and the same taxes you had last year for 5 years is nothing new. It is a matter of norming, not psychology.

 

[BenNatuf]

Well, we still have the Bush tax cuts in place; wheres the jobs and prosperity?

from the time they were enacted to the time the bubble burst in 2007 they produced 8M jobs.

The tax cuts produced 8M jobs? Interesting.

Did the tax hike in 1993 create 19M jobs?

No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.

 

[kiwiman127]

Considering that the US's economy is 70% driven by Consumer Spending. Cain's plan very likely hurt the economy of this country.

=====================================



Cain’s Sales Tax Would Hurt Consumer Spending

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s plan to create a national sales tax would hurt retailers, threaten economic growth and shift the tax burden onto the middle class and poor, tax experts and business groups said.

<snip>

Tax experts and business groups interviewed yesterday don&#8217;t like his tax plan as much as voters. They said it would shift the burden to middle-income and poor families and would hurt sales across the economy, at least in the short term.

&#8220;There will be a noticeable decline in consumer spending for some years,&#8221; said Rachelle Bernstein, vice president of the National Retail Federation, based in Washington, in an interview. &#8220;We know that that has an impact on consumer spending and GDP.&#8221;

Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Cain
================================

Considering Cain is in retail, one would think he had a clue about the effects of his 9-9-9's plan of the middle class and the poor, but even more so on the US's consumer driven economy. His knowledge of basic economics is very suspect.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The implementation of a national sales tax without a repeal of the 16th Amendment is a bad idea and I won't support it. End required analysis of 9-9-9.

 

[8537]

from the time they were enacted to the time the bubble burst in 2007 they produced 8M jobs.

The tax cuts produced 8M jobs? Interesting.

Did the tax hike in 1993 create 19M jobs?

No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.

There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.

So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?

You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.

 

[pgm]

No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.

I think you're half right. I think the Capital Gains tax cut (in 1997, btw) helped spur job creation, but I don't think the fiscal sanity (which includes Clinton's tax increases) did anything except help the bonds market. If there's anything that gets forgotten about the '90s is OPEC kept oil prices artificially low. Forget anything American politicians did during the '90s as the primary catalyst for economic growth.

In my opinion (and I believe studies agree with me), fiscal sanity is an investment for the future, not for the economy of today. There is some fear of a debt overhang slowing investments (particularly long-term investments), but there are tons of other factors that are much more important.

I'm cautiously a Keynsian (with some conservative ideas sprinkled in). I believe the U.S. should run a budget surplus during the good years so it can build up a rainy day fund. Then, I believe the U.S. should engage in deficit spending during the lean years (spend money or cut taxes, it doesn't make that much of a difference). The '90s had a budget surplus and it should have (it honestly wasn't high enough, but it's tough to cut government spending). I believe the middle years of the Bush Administration should have been running a surplus (some of that is the Republican's fault and much is the Democratic Congress's fault). But right now, there is almost no way to run a surplus. The economy is depressed (lower revenues) and cutting spending will depress it further.

I apologize for the disorganized (and rambling) nature of this post. I didn't eat lunch yet, so my brain is frazzled.

 

[pgm]

I'm not sure if it is part of the equation above but Wal Mart buys a shitload from American companies. It may not be in the taxable category so it may not be applicable.

But are those products "made in the USA"?

Cain hasn't decided yet if his plan lets businesses deduct computers designed in the USA with parts from California, Japan and Korea and assembled in Thailand.

 

[BenNatuf]

The tax cuts produced 8M jobs? Interesting.

Did the tax hike in 1993 create 19M jobs?

No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.

There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.

So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?

You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.

Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.

Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another hilarity is that less than a year ago, when he thought it was a Democrat idea,

Cain said that a national sales tax was 'the worst idea proposed'.

In Herman Cain&#8217;s Writings, a Startling Lack of Foresight | Swampland | TIME.com

3rd paragraph.

This guy is a big fat clown.

 

[rightwinger]

Another hilarity is that less than a year ago, when he thought it was a Democrat idea,

Cain said that a national sales tax was 'the worst idea proposed'.

In Herman Cain’s Writings, a Startling Lack of Foresight | Swampland | TIME.com

3rd paragraph.

This guy is big fat clown.

He was against it before he was for it

Which means he saw he could get a huge tax reduction for his wealthy friends

 

[8537]

No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.

There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.

So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?

You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.

Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.

Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?

How convenient of an explanation! So, why did the economy grow so fast after TEFRA and a near doubling of the SS tax?

Why did it grow so fast when the top marginal rate was 91%. 91!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You said this:



We did that. I'm asking you.

Your asking me a clearly partisan question. I gave you a partisan response. Seems fair to me.


Or did you actually expect tax cuts from nearly a decade ago to create jobs today?

Wasn't a partisan question; it was a very fair question and you, as always, took it to an "us against them" place. You went so far to state that the GOP doesn't care if its a good or bad thing for the nation; only that it is a political football. You should expect more from your party.

As for what I expected, gee, if tax cuts were such a silver bullet, how did we end up here? I mean, we had the tax cuts, there should be more money in the economy than ever--in the hands of the rich who supposedly create jobs and expand the economy. What happened? I'm your response will in no way mention funding 2 major wars while cutting taxes; will it?

no part of my response eluded to us vs them. And what do the wars have to do with our current tax debate? Moving the goalposts doesn't change the core part of our discussion. Besides did Obama raise taxes to pay for the wars? Yea, its a moot point. Were talking about the effects of taxes on jobs not the wars. Nice try though.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.

So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?

You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.

Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.

Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?

How convenient of an explanation! So, why did the economy grow so fast after TEFRA and a near doubling of the SS tax?

Why did it grow so fast when the top marginal rate was 91%. 91!

Dead from the neck up.
You must be kidding. Ok, instead of me berating you for your utter lack of intelligence, do this. Go find where the term "marginal tax rate" is defined.
BTW genius, high taxes REMOVE privately owned wealth from the economy.
At the end of the day, only people of the irrational belief that matters of economy are best served in the halls of government. FALSE.
You people want government control because you are incapable of managing your own finances. You people also believe that compassion begins in the bank accounts of other people and should be managed by bureaucrats.
Clinton was no economic scholar. What he did was listen to much smarter people than he.
Clinton was convinced he needed to increase taxes because as a liberal, that is what they do. What actually happened is Clinton at the advice of his advisors, let the economy run itself. The result was one of the biggest economic booms in US history. Also one of the longest periods of economic prosperity.
Your notion that only high taxes can drive an economy is a FAIL.

 

[Ava]

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain acknowledged on Sunday his "9-9-9" tax reform plan would raise taxes on some Americans but denied criticism it would help the rich while hurting the poor.

"Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," Cain, a former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza who has never held elected office, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes on some | Reuters

 

[8537]

Amazing post, therisnospoon! You are the smartest guy on the planet and I bow to your internet wit.

Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.

Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?

How convenient of an explanation! So, why did the economy grow so fast after TEFRA and a near doubling of the SS tax?

Why did it grow so fast when the top marginal rate was 91%. 91!

Dead from the neck up.
You must be kidding. Ok, instead of me berating you for your utter lack of intelligence,

Oh! How ******* convenient. Instead of actually debating something, well just call the other person stupid. Tell me kid, where'd you get your smarts?

Go find where the term "marginal tax rate" is defined.

I'm quite familiar with the term.

BTW genius, high taxes REMOVE privately owned wealth from the economy.
At the end of the day, only people of the irrational belief that matters of economy are best served in the halls of government. FALSE.
You people want government control because you are incapable of managing your own finances.

oh really now? How does someone discern from a message board what my finances are? If you could so, you'd learn that I can manage my finances just fine, thank you very much.

you people also believe that compassion begins in the bank accounts of other people and should be managed by bureaucrats.

Not only do you know how much I earn, but what I believe as well! You're a regular ******* Nostrodamus. Or an internet idiot. You decide.

Clinton was no economic scholar. What he did was listen to much smarter people than he.
Clinton was convinced he needed to increase taxes because as a liberal, that is what they do. What actually happened is Clinton at the advice of his advisors, let the economy run itself.

Eh, he passed the second largest tax hike as a % of GDP since WW2.

Your notion that only high taxes can drive an economy is a FAIL.

Your notion that I claimed any such things proves you to be a ******* hack. Try reading my post again and come back when you understand it.

 

[8537]

Thereisnospoon, what was the TMR in 1955? Did the economy somehow manage to grow?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain acknowledged on Sunday his "9-9-9" tax reform plan would raise taxes on some Americans but denied criticism it would help the rich while hurting the poor.

"Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," Cain, a former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza who has never held elected office, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes on some | Reuters

He unlike most politicians is attempting to be honest on all fronts of the debate. It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't mislead the public in an attempt to garner more votes. Is he or his plan perfect? Hell no, but to his credit he isn't hiding the facts.

Any other candidate besides maybe Paul would have dodged that question or changed the subject all together.

 

[MeBelle]

Consumption drives 70% of the American economy.

So the former Federal Reserve guy Cain wants to tax consumption and lower taxes for the rich.
Which puts a burden on the working poor.
Shifting the tax burden from the rich to the working poor.
Republicans....it's what they do.

Here is a webpage I found that pretty much sums up the real world scenario:

Effective June 1, 2010 the Arizona sales tax rate for retail purchases is 6.6%. Maricopa County adds on .7% sales tax to support roads and jails. That's a total of 7.3%.

Author's Note: If you buy a dollar's worth of a taxable product, you pay $1.08 at this point. Right out of the box.


It continues on.



Then, each city may add sales tax. If you add the total of the Arizona sales tax and Maricopa County sales tax, 7.3%, to the city sales tax rate, you'll get the total retail sales tax that you'll pay when purchasing merchandise in that city.
City Sales Tax Rates in Maricopa County, Arizona
<snip>
Apparently, 9-9-9 if I understand it correctly will add nine cents to every dollar spent. Making the tax rate in PHX $0.19. If I don't have that right, please tell me what the sales tax rate in Phoenix will be if 9-9-9 were in place.

Thanks.

People would still be paying State, County, Property, City etc sales tax ANYHOW.
Does the 9% Federal Sales Tax equate to what one pays now in federal taxes? (And I don't mean 'pay', then get it all refunded)
Some will answer yes, some no.
999 is merely an idea at this point and has not been thoroughly analyzed.
So, to me, having an opinion without having all the details is pointless.

 

[The T]

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain acknowledged on Sunday his "9-9-9" tax reform plan would raise taxes on some Americans but denied criticism it would help the rich while hurting the poor.

"Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," Cain, a former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza who has never held elected office, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes on some | Reuters

He unlike most politicians is attempting to be honest on all fronts of the debate. It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't mislead the public in an attempt to garner more votes. Is he or his plan perfect? Hell no, but to his credit he isn't hiding the facts.

Any other candidate besides maybe Paul would have dodged that question or changed the subject all together.

The left loves being lied to. It's the only way they ever win.

 

[Lakhota]

Billionaire Investor Warren Buffett Would Pay No Income Tax Under Cain's 999 Plan | ThinkProgress