The 9-9-9 Plan

[Rebel]

https://www.hermancain.com/999plan


It's a transition to someplace I've wanted to be for years, THE FAIR TAX. 

[IassaFTots]

https://www.hermancain.com/999plan


It's a transition to someplace I've wanted to be for years, THE FAIR TAX. 

Me Too.  I am glad you introduced me to Mr. Cain.  Hi5!

[Eupher]

https://www.hermancain.com/999plan


It's a transition to someplace I've wanted to be for years, THE FAIR TAX. 

What happens when President Cain, after 8 years in office, goes into a well-deserved retirement and Congress takes the 9% National Sales Tax and doubles it?

Don't say it can't happen. Congress is capable of all kinds of evil. Look at what happened to Europe. VAT taxes are double what they started out to be. All it takes is a socialist government (much like we've got now).

I'm all for revamping throwing out our tax code. But I'm not convinced that enacting a national sales tax is in our best interests.

[Rebel]

What happens when President Cain, after 8 years in office, goes into a well-deserved retirement and Congress takes the 9% National Sales Tax and doubles it?

Since it's across the board, it'll affect EVERYBODY. How likely is that to happen? Hell, they can't even get a 1% sales tax increase in my own town. It's why we have SPLOST, which has a beginning and end time.

Remove the class warfare, and all the sudden its not so easy to increase taxes. With all these different brackets, well, no one gives a shit if the other guy's taxes get increased.

[Rugnuts]

"2/3 senate vote to increase rates" amendment first

[Rebel]

"2/3 senate vote to increase rates" amendment first

Forgot about that. Thanks. 

[DefiantSix]

"2/3 senate vote to increase rates" amendment first

Invalidate the 16th Amendment first.  I don't mind giving Washington a sales tax, so long as they don't ALSO have their left hand in my other pocket taxing income simultaneously.  One or the other; we've seen too much of the kind of damage these retards inside the Beltway could do with BOTH.

[Rebel]

Invalidate the 16th Amendment first.  I don't mind giving Washington a sales tax, so long as they don't ALSO have their left hand in my other pocket taxing income simultaneously.  One or the other; we've seen too much of the kind of damage these retards inside the Beltway could do with BOTH.

If it's written like the Fair Tax, it will be before implementation. The Fair Tax, HR-45, is written to state that, even if passed, it will not come into effect until one business day after the 16th Amendment is repealed. Herman is very close to Boortz; I'm pretty sure that came up in the discussions.

[Texacon]

Invalidate the 16th Amendment first.  I don't mind giving Washington a sales tax, so long as they don't ALSO have their left hand in my other pocket taxing income simultaneously.  One or the other; we've seen too much of the kind of damage these retards inside the Beltway could do with BOTH.

Absolutely, that has to happen.  I like the 9/9/9 plan but only as a precursor to the Fair Tax.

KC

[Eupher]

Since it's across the board, it'll affect EVERYBODY. How likely is that to happen? Hell, they can't even get a 1% sales tax increase in my own town. It's why we have SPLOST, which has a beginning and end time.

Remove the class warfare, and all the sudden its not so easy to increase taxes. With all these different brackets, well, no one gives a shit if the other guy's taxes get increased.

As I said, I'm all for throwing out the current tax code - and if that means tossing the 16th Amendment first, hey all the better.

I simply don't trust Congress to do the right thing consistently, if ever. Couching 999 (or at least any kind of national sales tax) in the form of an Amendment to the Constitution as opposed to mere legislation gives at least the semblance of consistency.


I didn't mention it in my first response, but all of this doesn't take into account city and state income taxes and local sales taxes. Gotta take a long, hard look at that shit before I'm comfortable with any kind of national sales tax.

[Rebel]

I didn't mention it in my first response, but all of this doesn't take into account city and state income taxes and local sales taxes. Gotta take a long, hard look at that shit before I'm comfortable with any kind of national sales tax.

It doesn't take those taxes into account because they're irrelevant to the topic of federal taxation. What it does take into account are a 35% corporate tax, 22% embedded tax consumers pay that are passed on by businesses on every good purchased, payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes. If you pay 25% in federal income tax every year, you also pay an additional 22% on every new good you purchase. That's before you even reach the state and local level. This is a simple 9% income tax (ALL workers currently pay 7.6% of a 15.2% payroll tax, the employer generally picks up the other 7.6% JUST FOR SS, Medicare, etc.), a 9% sales tax on new goods (you currently pay 22% embedded tax on every good you purchase), and a 9% corporate tax (Currently it's at 35%, making it the highest in the industrialized world and killing jobs, including our lost manufacturing base).

This is not only a tax restructuring, it's a jobs plan. The numbers work. People that say they don't add up have no clue as to what they pay in embedded taxes on good, because it's built into the cost of the product. That 22% would come out and essentially drop to 9%. Don't think companies will do it, and opt for pocketing that additional income? Well, it would suck for them because their competitors damn sure will to gain marketshare.

[Rugnuts]

one thing i havent heard yet about 999
is the standard deduction system still in place for the income part? do the 47% still get off??

[Rebel]

one thing i havent heard yet about 999
is the standard deduction system still in place for the income part? do the 47% still get off??

No.

[Eupher]

It doesn't take those taxes into account because they're irrelevant to the topic of federal taxation. What it does take into account are a 35% corporate tax, 22% embedded tax consumers pay that are passed on by businesses on every good purchased, payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes. If you pay 25% in federal income tax every year, you also pay an additional 22% on every new good you purchase. That's before you even reach the state and local level. This is a simple 9% income tax (ALL workers currently pay 7.6% of a 15.2% payroll tax, the employer generally picks up the other 7.6% JUST FOR SS, Medicare, etc.), a 9% sales tax on new goods (you currently pay 22% embedded tax on every good you purchase), and a 9% corporate tax (Currently it's at 35%, making it the highest in the industrialized world and killing jobs, including our lost manufacturing base).

This is not only a tax restructuring, it's a jobs plan. The numbers work. People that say they don't add up have no clue as to what they pay in embedded taxes on good, because it's built into the cost of the product. That 22% would come out and essentially drop to 9%. Don't think companies will do it, and opt for pocketing that additional income? Well, it would suck for them because their competitors damn sure will to gain marketshare.

I'm familiar enough with 999, Reb, to know all of this, though not to the actual percentages (good job in bringing that up, btw). While you're technically correct in saying that state/local/city income and sales taxes are irrelevant to 999, they are NOT irrelevant to the subject of taxes at hand. No doubt you know that in most larger cities, the city income tax takes an already large bite out of someone's paycheck that's already getting raped by the feds and the state and while some states, like Tennessee, don't have a state income tax, the state and local sales tax gets real close to 10% -- and the bastards tax EVERYTHING, including food and medications.

Whatever comes out of 999 does NOT speak toward the levying of taxes by state and local pols. THAT's my point. And this is the stuff that needs to be ironed out in lurid detail before I sign onto to any kind of national sales tax. Just call me skeptical when it comes to the ****ing politicians getting slaphappy with our money.

[Rugnuts]

very well then
change the name to the 1-29-2013 plan

[Eupher]

No.

No mortgage deduction either.

[Rugnuts]

No mortgage deduction either.

with no deductions at all
it will mean a loss of 30,000 jobs....



from the IRS!

[Rebel]

No mortgage deduction either.

That deduction is nothing more than a false bonus at the end of the year anyway, money you've already paid through taxation, letting the government draw interest on your money. I'd rather keep my money every paycheck and collect my own interest.

[Eupher]

That deduction is nothing more than a false bonus at the end of the year anyway, money you've already paid through taxation, letting the government draw interest on your money. I'd rather keep my money every paycheck and collect my own interest.

True, but the fallout to that is less incentive to buy a home.

[rich_t]

True, but the fallout to that is less incentive to buy a home.

I don't know if I'm just the odd one on this issue, but when I purchased my homes the mortgage deduction played no part of my decision.

I've spoken to multiple home owners over the years and only a very few stated that the deduction was a big issue in their purchasing decision.

[Eupher]

I don't know if I'm just the odd one on this issue, but when I purchased my homes the mortgage deduction played no part of my decision.

I've spoken to multiple home owners over the years and only a very few stated that the deduction was a big issue in their purchasing decision.

Well, I bought my first home at the tender age of 42. And yes, I agree that the mortgage deduction shouldn't really play a part in the actual purchase of a particular home, but in comparison to renting and having to pay taxes on your rent money, owning a home and being able to deduct the mortgage interest is attractive.

[Rebel]

Well, I bought my first home at the tender age of 42. And yes, I agree that the mortgage deduction shouldn't really play a part in the actual purchase of a particular home, but in comparison to renting and having to pay taxes on your rent money, owning a home and being able to deduct the mortgage interest is attractive.

Apparently, we need more renters than homeowners. The idea that everyone deserved to own their own home didn't work out too well for us last time.

[Eupher]

Apparently, we need more renters than homeowners. The idea that everyone deserved to own their own home didn't work out too well for us last time.

Ah-yup. Can't argue with you there. But we ain't talking about offering $300,000 mortgages to someone who makes $10 an hour -- if he's employed at all. Short story time.

Mrs. E worked with a guy once who was (like her) probationary -- meaning that he was making $1,500 per month which had to be paid back after the first year of employment -- if he survived. It was a strictly commission kind of arrangement in recruiting.

Anyway, the guy didn't even have enough money to afford a car. He had to get a ride to work, which was sometimes iffy.

Yet the sumbitch managed to qualify for a $300,000 mortgage.

THAT kind of shit is beyond the pale. But for somebody whose income is sufficient to qualify for a reasonable loan within their means, hey, that shouldn't be beyond that person's reach.

(The guy bailed after about 4 months. I think he bought, and promptly lost, that house.)

[Texacon]

I'm familiar enough with 999, Reb, to know all of this, though not to the actual percentages (good job in bringing that up, btw). While you're technically correct in saying that state/local/city income and sales taxes are irrelevant to 999, they are NOT irrelevant to the subject of taxes at hand. No doubt you know that in most larger cities, the city income tax takes an already large bite out of someone's paycheck that's already getting raped by the feds and the state and while some states, like Tennessee, don't have a state income tax, the state and local sales tax gets real close to 10% -- and the bastards tax EVERYTHING, including food and medications.

Whatever comes out of 999 does NOT speak toward the levying of taxes by state and local pols. THAT's my point. And this is the stuff that needs to be ironed out in lurid detail before I sign onto to any kind of national sales tax. Just call me skeptical when it comes to the ****ing politicians getting slaphappy with our money.

Euph, why should a federal tax plan have anything to do with state and local taxes?  The 9/9/9 plan and the Fair Tax are both nothing more than a simpler more transparent way of paying your federal tax burden.

Neither of these plans are promising to actually lower the taxes you pay (well at least the Fair Tax isn't and I don't think the 9/9/9 is either) they are just a different way of collecting those taxes.

You will have to deal with your state and local governments to do anything about those taxes and that is the way it should be.

KC

[Eupher]

Euph, why should a federal tax plan have anything to do with state and local taxes?  The 9/9/9 plan and the Fair Tax are both nothing more than a simpler more transparent way of paying your federal tax burden.

Neither of these plans are promising to actually lower the taxes you pay (well at least the Fair Tax isn't and I don't think the 9/9/9 is either) they are just a different way of collecting those taxes.

You will have to deal with your state and local governments to do anything about those taxes and that is the way it should be.

KC

I think it's fair to look at the overall tax burden -- irrespective of where the taxes come from and who assesses them. That's not unrealistic and I think it's relevant to the issue. As to actually reducing taxes, isn't that our end goal? Apart from reshuffling the deck and dealing out the same old cards, I'd like to see actual reduction as a result of 999. Otherwise, what's the point? Either way we go, the government still spends money like drunken sailors and we're footing the bill.