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

[thereisnospoon]

I don't 'hate it,' I just think it's a joke.

Please elaborate. Use your own words. Do not post links to blogs and opinion pieces.
GO!

 

[BenNatuf]

They why is it, in your opinion, that most Republicans are not shouting for a tax break right now then?

other than the candidates I don't believe most republicans feel they need too. The left in congress is screwing up their own chances. No need to get in the way. In 2012 republicans will have a majority and can persue issues they deem necessary. Arguing about it now would be completely futile. There is a time and place for every discussion. Right now liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by polls of the independents, just ride the wave.

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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

 

[candycorn]

other than the candidates I don't believe most republicans feel they need too. The left in congress is screwing up their own chances. No need to get in the way. In 2012 republicans will have a majority and can persue issues they deem necessary. Arguing about it now would be completely futile. There is a time and place for every discussion. Right now liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by polls of the independents, just ride the wave.

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

You need to ask harry Reid and Obama not me.

You said this:

A large cut however could and in my opinion would spur growth in both the economy and job growth.

We did that. I'm asking you.

 

[candycorn]

other than the candidates I don't believe most republicans feel they need too. The left in congress is screwing up their own chances. No need to get in the way. In 2012 republicans will have a majority and can persue issues they deem necessary. Arguing about it now would be completely futile. There is a time and place for every discussion. Right now liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by polls of the independents, just ride the wave.

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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

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?

 

[candycorn]

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

You need to ask harry Reid and Obama not me.

You said this:

A large cut however could and in my opinion would spur growth in both the economy and job growth.

We did that. I'm asking you.

Disregard; it was explained to me.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

You need to ask harry Reid and Obama not me.

You said this:

A large cut however could and in my opinion would spur growth in both the economy and job growth.

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

other than the candidates I don't believe most republicans feel they need too. The left in congress is screwing up their own chances. No need to get in the way. In 2012 republicans will have a majority and can persue issues they deem necessary. Arguing about it now would be completely futile. There is a time and place for every discussion. Right now liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by polls of the independents, just ride the wave.

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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

That implies that every time the economy needs a boost we need to further cut taxes, and thus at some point taxes reach zero,

the government is bankrupt, chaos reigns, and worst of all,

what do you do the next time the economy needs a boost?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Really. What's there to hate? If it gets dummies to go on record in support of it......it is worth the few minutes it takes to understand that it is folly. Too bad the dummies will NEVER come back here and admit that they were wrong to buy into it. The heels are dug in already.

BTW.....President Obama has a plan......he's been working the plan for a few years now.

What PLAN is THAT?
He's bamboozled the public twqice to the tune of nearly one trillion dollars. Now he wants a third bite at the apple. His is message is "trust me. It will work THIS TIME. I promise".
If that is what you refer to as a "plan", that is frightening.

 

[Full-Auto]

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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

That implies that every time the economy needs a boost we need to further cut taxes, and thus at some point taxes reach zero,

the government is bankrupt, chaos reigns, and worst of all,

what do you do the next time the economy needs a boost?

The tax code needs serious revision. The government needs reorganization.

Just raising taxes is suicide.

 

[Lakhota]

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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

That implies that every time the economy needs a boost we need to further cut taxes, and thus at some point taxes reach zero,

the government is bankrupt, chaos reigns, and worst of all,

what do you do the next time the economy needs a boost?

Cain's entire platform is bizarre - but the Gumps eat it up.

 

[kiwiman127]

other than the candidates I don't believe most republicans feel they need too. The left in congress is screwing up their own chances. No need to get in the way. In 2012 republicans will have a majority and can persue issues they deem necessary. Arguing about it now would be completely futile. There is a time and place for every discussion. Right now liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by polls of the independents, just ride the wave.

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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

Really?

 

[Lakhota]

I've never seen any "credible" evidence that reducing taxes on the rich produces jobs!

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth | ThinkProgress

 

[pgm]

That Cain said a stupid thing with the 3-3-3 bullshit?

So black people in the inner city get a 3% tax rate but us "rich" middle class white folk get the 9% tax based on our zip code?

Hell, I'd move to the inner city if I get a 6% cut in income and sales tax. Especially if it was a place like Brooklyn where I'd at least have a good transit system.

 

[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. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

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.

 

[BenNatuf]

going back to a company like wal mart.

Consider Cains formula.

Gross income - (purchases from US business' + investments) = taxable income.

for simplicity purposes we'll say they have revenue of 1B

Currently wal mart operates on about a 10% net meaning they pay at most 35% of the 100M net or around 25M plus they pay 7.65% of payroll which for wal mart considering economies of scale is only about 50% of revenue (this would include the payroll taxes), meaning they currently pay something in the area of 40M in payroll taxes for a total tax bill of roughly 75M.

under 9-9-9

1B in revenue minus purchases from US companies (which for walmart is close to ZERO) call it 5% to be charitable to the plan = 950M in revenue - investments. Investments for wal mart are tricky since the vast majority of any investment they make is going to be in building new stores, which of course means they will be subject to the 9% sales tax in doing so, so in effect they will be paying the 9%, just not in incometaxes-- it is a wash. For all practicle purposes wall mart will be taxed on virtually thier entire revenue, thats a 9% tax on 950B or around 85M in taxes a 10M tax INCREASE.

So tell me again Herman how embedded taxes will "go away"?

Normal business expenses like COL and opperations are not deductable from revenue under Cain's plan, only purchases made from US companies and investments are. So a retailor who sells mostly foriegn goods is going to have to pay a 9% tax on the revenue they use to purchase foriegn goods and a 9% tax on the revenue they use to pay thier employees. Then you get to pay a 9% sales tax when you buy it on top of the "embedded taxes" that under Cain's plan aren't going anywhere despite his claims.

 

[candycorn]

You need to ask harry Reid and Obama not me.

You said this:

A large cut however could and in my opinion would spur growth in both the economy and job growth.

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?

 

[candycorn]

going back to a company like wal mart.

Consider Cains formula.

Gross income - (purchases from US business' + investments) = taxable income.

for simplicity purposes we'll say they have revenue of 1B

Currently wal mart operates on about a 10% net meaning they pay at most 35% of the 100M net or around 25M plus they pay 7.65% of payroll which for wal mart considering economies of scale is only about 50% of revenue (this would include the payroll taxes), meaning they currently pay something in the area of 40M in payroll taxes for a total tax bill of roughly 75M.

under 9-9-9

1B in revenue minus purchases from US companies (which for walmart is close to ZERO) call it 5% to be charitable to the plan = 950M in revenue - investments. Investments for wal mart are tricky since the vast majority of any investment they make is going to be in building new stores, which of course means they will be subject to the 9% sales tax in doing so, so in effect they will be paying the 9%, just not in incometaxes-- it is a wash. For all practicle purposes wall mart will be taxed on virtually thier entire revenue, thats a 9% tax on 950B or around 85M in taxes a 10M tax INCREASE.

So tell me again Herman how embedded taxes will "go away"?

Normal business expenses like COL and opperations are not deductable from revenue under Cain's plan, only purchases made from US companies and investments are. So a retailor who sells mostly foriegn goods is going to have to pay a 9% tax on the revenue they use to purchase foriegn goods and a 9% tax on the revenue they use to pay thier employees. Then you get to pay a 9% sales tax when you buy it on top of the "embedded taxes" that under Cain's plan aren't going anywhere despite his claims.

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.

Just saying....

 

[candycorn]

from the time they were enacted to the time the bubble burst in 2007 they produced 8M jobs. Once Obama signed them into law to continue them as is the job hemoraging from the bubble bursting stopped. As it is tax cuts have a shelf life on effecting the economy and it ended once they became the norm.

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.

 

[BenNatuf]

going back to a company like wal mart.

Consider Cains formula.

Gross income - (purchases from US business' + investments) = taxable income.

for simplicity purposes we'll say they have revenue of 1B

Currently wal mart operates on about a 10% net meaning they pay at most 35% of the 100M net or around 25M plus they pay 7.65% of payroll which for wal mart considering economies of scale is only about 50% of revenue (this would include the payroll taxes), meaning they currently pay something in the area of 40M in payroll taxes for a total tax bill of roughly 75M.

under 9-9-9

1B in revenue minus purchases from US companies (which for walmart is close to ZERO) call it 5% to be charitable to the plan = 950M in revenue - investments. Investments for wal mart are tricky since the vast majority of any investment they make is going to be in building new stores, which of course means they will be subject to the 9% sales tax in doing so, so in effect they will be paying the 9%, just not in incometaxes-- it is a wash. For all practicle purposes wall mart will be taxed on virtually thier entire revenue, thats a 9% tax on 950B or around 85M in taxes a 10M tax INCREASE.

So tell me again Herman how embedded taxes will "go away"?

Normal business expenses like COL and opperations are not deductable from revenue under Cain's plan, only purchases made from US companies and investments are. So a retailor who sells mostly foriegn goods is going to have to pay a 9% tax on the revenue they use to purchase foriegn goods and a 9% tax on the revenue they use to pay thier employees. Then you get to pay a 9% sales tax when you buy it on top of the "embedded taxes" that under Cain's plan aren't going anywhere despite his claims.

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.

Just saying....

That may be so, I'm not sure, but I do know that all of the stuff they buy from other countries, which is the majority of thier product will not be deductable from revenue, so it will have a 9% embedded tax on it before the sales tax ever gets applied.

 

[8537]

other than the candidates I don't believe most republicans feel they need too. The left in congress is screwing up their own chances. No need to get in the way. In 2012 republicans will have a majority and can persue issues they deem necessary. Arguing about it now would be completely futile. There is a time and place for every discussion. Right now liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by polls of the independents, just ride the wave.

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?