Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on October 14, 2011, 04:28:23 PM
-
For the guys who dont like it.
What in the plan dont you like and why?
Ive seen a couple threads about stupid shit having nothing to do with the merits of the bill itself...
SOOOOOOOO, this is your chance to debate the actual merits of the bill.
Please let me know
-
We’ve got enough income and wealth inequality coming from the pretax distribution—we don’t need to exacerbate it through the tax code.
By Jared Bernstein,
I debated Herman Cain’s economic advisor, Rich Lowrie, last night on the Larry Kudlow Show. A key point here is that the plan, which Bruce Barlett calls a “distributional nightmare,” radically shifts the tax burden from high-income households to everyone else. I focused on the median household, and Lowrie either doesn’t understand the implications of the plan or he’s deliberately misrepresenting it.
Before joining the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a senior fellow, Jared was chief economist to Vice President Joseph Biden and executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class. He is a contributor to MSNBC and CNBC and has written numerous books, including 'Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?'
Public Finance •Government and Politics •Taxes •Political Policy •Politics •Economic Policy •Domestic Policy •.For a $50K household, married couple, two kids, all income from earnings and standard deductions, the current tax burden is $8.3K. Under 9-9-9, that would grow to $13.5K, an increase of over $5,000 (hat tip: CCH, BS). The WaPo fact checker came to a similar conclusion. E Klein too.
(I expect that any minute now the Tax Policy Center will release a slew of data supporting these points with their much more detailed tax model.)
But Lowrie wouldn’t accept that conclusion. In fact, he asserted that their federal tax would be lower because they’d move from a 15% payroll tax to a 9% income tax. This, as I said on air, is “patently wrong.”
First of all, assuming they plan to exist, they’ll need to consume stuff, and thus they’ll also face the 9% sales tax. That already makes their tax rate 18%, higher than the 15%.
RELATED: Election 101: Herman Cain
But as Michael Linden points out, and this is widely agreed upon by tax economists, the incidence of the 9% tax on business income (which denies businesses a deduction for wages paid) also hits them, which is why former Joint Tax Committee chief of staff Ed Kleinbard described the tax as a 27% payroll tax for families whose incomes derive from earnings (note that Lowrie is perfectly comfortable with the standard assumption assigning the incidence of the employers side of the payroll tax to the family—this one re the business tax is equally standard).
For a family with $500K, same assumptions as above, their tax bill would fall by $44K.
But where this plan really gets regressive is when you get up into the families who derive their income from non-labor sources. While the details of the plan are fuzzy when it comes to capital gains and dividends, it seems clear that those earning thousands or even millions of dollars in these types of non-labor income would enjoy a massive tax cut. And that would further widen the disparity between the highly preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends on the one hand, and the taxation of “ordinary” wage and salary income on the other.
We’ve got enough income and wealth inequality coming from the pretax distribution—we don’t need to exacerbate it through the tax code.
Middle class families that depend on earnings will pay more taxes under the Cain tax plan. High income families will pay a lot less. His advisors who say otherwise are misleading the electorate and that must not stand.
-
LOL in your own words, not cut and fucking paste you moron...
-
who the fu@k you calling moron,retard ;D what does it matter if i read this article and write about it in my own words or just post the article, 999 is a falure
-
But as Michael Linden points out, and this is widely agreed upon by tax economists, the incidence of the 9% tax on business income (which denies businesses a deduction for wages paid) also hits them, which is why former Joint Tax Committee chief of staff Ed Kleinbard described the tax as a 27% payroll tax for families whose incomes derive from earnings (note that Lowrie is perfectly comfortable with the standard assumption assigning the incidence of the employers side of the payroll tax to the family—this one re the business tax is equally standard).
For a family with $500K, same assumptions as above, their tax bill would fall by $44K.
this makes a stupid assumption, what workers income generally depends on earnings? it isnt the mid level employee its the high level employee. So the higher ups are going to feel it more not the middle.
I think if it excludes essentials like food and water then its fine to add a tax to consumers.
How about doing away with the sales tax or income tax and having a VAT?
-
For the guys who dont like it.
What in the plan dont you like and why?
Ive seen a couple threads about stupid shit having nothing to do with the merits of the bill itself...
SOOOOOOOO, this is your chance to debate the actual merits of the bill.
Please let me know
it's not a bill lol...
I tried my best to approach what has been released on the plan in a fair way. Glad to see you describe the debate that went on in that thread as, "stupid shit having nothing to do with" its merits ::) yea, thanks buddy... fuck you too lol...
-
who the fu@k you calling moron,retard ;D what does it matter if i read this article and write about it in my own words or just post the article, 999 is a falure
LOL b/c you dont understand what the guy is saying, refer to my post above...
-
it's not a bill lol...
I tried my best to approach what has been released on the plan in a fair way. Glad to see you describe the debate that went on in that thread as, "stupid shit having nothing to do with" its merits ::) yea, thanks buddy... fuck you too lol...
LOL sorry I havent see the cartoon lately...
The original post referred to threads not posts within them. You did and you were the only one, still there are plenty of morons like black ass who will cut and paste idiotic shit about wells fargo and sim city to somehow try to discredit it.
or even worse post shit they havent read or dont understand as in this thread.
-
so do you agree with the last sentence
Middle class families that depend on earnings will pay more taxes under the Cain tax plan. High income families will pay a lot less. His advisors who say otherwise are misleading the electorate and that must not stand.
-
LOL sorry I havent see the cartoon lately...
The original post referred to threads not posts within them. You did and you were the only one, still there are plenty of morons like black ass who will cut and paste idiotic shit about wells fargo and sim city to somehow try to discredit it.
or even worse post shit they havent read or dont understand as in this thread.
LOL, I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what you meant by cartoon. Cartoon... huh?... Then I had a flashback from my youth lol.
-
LOL, I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what you meant by cartoon. Cartoon... huh?... Then I had a flashback from my youth lol.
LOL thats ok i couldnt remember the name, the only thing i could think of was fragle rock lol
-
so do you agree with the last sentence
Middle class families that depend on earnings will pay more taxes under the Cain tax plan. High income families will pay a lot less. His advisors who say otherwise are misleading the electorate and that must not stand.
No, are you assuming that a middle class family consumes more than a high income family?
this will hit those who consume more, more...
-
so do you agree with the last sentence
Middle class families that depend on earnings will pay more taxes under the Cain tax plan. High income families will pay a lot less. His advisors who say otherwise are misleading the electorate and that must not stand.
actually none of this is for sure. It's basically an outline of the plan that's been released. You would have to wait to see his detailed plan to say this for sure. There could be all kinds of exemptions.
But, with such a radical change, he's fucked if he does not release a more detailed plan. If he thinks a basic one page summary on this will get him in the whitehouse, he's mistaken.
-
LOL in your own words, not cut and fucking paste you moron...
If the NY Times wrote an article saying the sky was purple this moron would be on here arguing in defense of it. The sheeple is incapable of thinking for himself. He’s literally the perfect Downgrade drone. A complete retard and a benefit-leeching parasite, to boot.
Guess there really was a reason for his mom only buying him Velcro sneakers.
The attack on this plan by the left shows that they're really not interested in generating revenue. They're only interested in keeping their parasitic welfare class as just that...a parasitic welfare class.
-
If the NY Times wrote an article saying the sky was purple this moron would be on here arguing in defense of it. The sheeple is incapable of thinking for himself. He’s literally the perfect Downgrade drone. A complete retard and a benefit-leeching parasite, to boot.
Guess there really was a reason for his mom only buying him Velcro sneakers.
The attack on this plan by the left shows that they're really not interested in generating revenue. They're only interested in keeping their parasitic welfare class as just that...a parasitic welfare class.
why would you even worry about it you live at home with your mommy,when you get your own place now let us know
-
why would you even worry about it you live at home with your mommy,when you get your own place now let us know
It's cute how the jobless parasite projects onto others.
Ho-hum, another 50 post day during working hours from you. Keep up the good work, stud! You make the rest of us Americans proud!
-
No, are you assuming that a middle class family consumes more than a high income family?
this will hit those who consume more, more...
-
I wonder if Dems thought about how much a VAT or Cap-and-trade would affect the lower and middle classes the last time they were pushing for them. Oh, wait, they didn't give a fuck then. ::)
-
There are legit concerns about Cain's plan and a need to see more details. I hope the debate doesn't just fall into commie libs wanting their handout--end of story lol.
-
It's cute how the jobless parasite projects onto others.
Ho-hum, another 50 post day during working hours from you. Keep up the good work, stud! You make the rest of us Americans proud!
you live mommy,come on tell everyone here that you live with your mother,and don't lie
-
There are legit concerns about Cain's plan and a need to see more details. I hope the debate doesn't just fall into commie libs wanting their handout--end of story lol.
This rampant spending will go on unabated until everyone asshole has some skin in the game.
you live mommy,come on tell everyone here that you live with your mother,and don't lie
Ho-hum, still projecting, still logging 50 posts every day of the working week and conversing with yourself on gimmicks.
Now that I think about it, your gimmickry indicates that you might suffer from schizophrenia or some type of mental sickness. Let me guess, disability pay? Fucking leech.
-
This rampant spending will go on unabated until everyone asshole has some skin in the game.
Ho-hum, still projecting, still logging 50 posts every day of the working week and conversing with yourself on gimmicks.
Now that I think about it, your gimmickry indicates that you might suffer from schizophrenia or some type of mental sickness. Let me guess, disability pay? Fucking leech.
hahahaha ashamed to admit you live with mommy,oh well what's a mama's boy to do :D
-
No, are you assuming that a middle class family consumes more than a high income family?
this will hit those who consume more, more...
-
The guy worked for the Federal Reserve and missed the biggest economic downturn in recent history because he didn't have all the "technical analyses". He gets his information from the "media" like "everyone else", yet, Ron Paul called the housing bubble and its catastrophic effects in 2003! What did Ron know that Cain didn't? Now I'm supposed to believe he has an answer with his 9-9-9 nonsense that some Joe blow character created for him? OK..
-
The guy worked for the Federal Reserve and missed the biggest economic downturn in recent history because he didn't have all the "technical analyses". He gets his information from the "media" like "everyone else", yet, Ron Paul called the housing bubble and its catastrophic effects in 2003! What did Ron know that Cain didn't? Now I'm supposed to believe he has an answer with his 9-9-9 nonsense that some Joe blow character created for him? OK..
so, you have nothing to say about the actual merits of this proposal?
come on bro, I understand your frustration but please dont bull shit. If this proposal is shit then tell us why, you attacking cain doesnt do anything to discredit the plan.
-
so, you have nothing to say about the actual merits of this proposal?
come on bro, I understand your frustration but please don't bull shit. If this proposal is shit then tell us why, you attacking Cain doesn't do anything to discredit the plan.
Like Hugo said, I can't comment much on something that isn't even there yet. I'm looking for more information but so far article after article mentions that there isn't much to be seen but that what is there would raise taxes on the lower and middle class.
If you have the full, detailed plan I would look over it.
I don't know how you could say I'm bullshitting though, I just made a comment on how blind he was to something that was so obvious to others. If a person is going to brag about their business background and how that experience would help them create policies that would turn the economy around, don't you think they would have a lot more credence if they got the former right? I'd feel much better if he had an understanding and true belief of what he says but I think most of it just comes from others and he regurgitates.
-
so, you have nothing to say about the actual merits of this proposal?
come on bro, I understand your frustration but please dont bull shit. If this proposal is shit then tell us why, you attacking cain doesnt do anything to discredit the plan.
so, you have nothing to say against Cain's plan? Come on bro... ::)
-
Like Hugo said, I can't comment much on something that isn't even there yet. I'm looking for more information but so far article after article is saying that there isn't much to be seen but that what is there would raise taxes on the lower and middle class.
If you have the full, detailed plan I would look over it.
I don't know how you could say I'm bullshitting though, I just made a comment on how blind he was to something that was so obvious to others. If a person is going to brag about their business background and how that experience would help them create policies that would turn the economy around, don't you think they would have a lot more credence if they got the former right? I'd feel much better if he had an understanding and true belief of what he says but I think most of it just comes from others and he regurgitates.
without a doubt, that however has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of this plan so bringing it up in regards to this bill and its merits is BULL SHITTING...
-
so, you have nothing to say against Cain's plan? Come on bro... ::)
show me where he mentioned anything in relation to this plan and ill retract my statement. So far all he has done is criticize the supposed creater of it and cain.
-
without a doubt, that however has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of this plan so bringing it up in regards to this bill and its merits is BULL SHITTING...
If professional economists can't extract meaningfull information from what he's laid forth, than I'm afraid I wont have much to add. In that case, his plan means just as much to me as "yes,we can.", at this time.
I'll wait for more inforamtion but I am dubious. If there is something in his full plan that I think would help, I would give him props for it.
I should note that I posted videos of Cain on here because I liked some of what he said at the time but on closer inspection and realizing his past I changed my mind.
-
If professional economists can't extract meaningfull information from what he's laid forth, than I'm afraid I wont have much to add. In that case, his plan means just as much to me as "yes,we can.", at this time.
I'll wait for more inforamtion but I am dubious. If there is something in his full plan that I think would help, I would give him props for it.
I should note that I posted videos of Cain on here because I liked some of what he said at the time but on closer inspection and realizing his past I changed my mind.
thats fine that you have rescended your support but youve been more than dubious of this plan. Youve flat out rejected it without even knowing of its merits and flaws...
-
show me where he mentioned anything in relation to this plan and ill retract my statement. So far all he has done is criticize the supposed creater of it and cain.
He doesn't have to, why should he?... Just like you have not been critical of his plan in any regard whatsoever aside from your normal reply of "agreed" then followed with the opposite which still baffles me.
Here's a novel idea... what if you actually talked about what you don't like and what you do like about what Cain has outlined so far. It might actually give some ground to have a fucking debate on. Rather than the same old "fuck you" style posts...
-
He doesn't have to, why should he?... Just like you have not been critical of his plan in any regard whatsoever aside from your normal reply of "agreed" then followed with the opposite which still baffles me.
Here's a novel idea... what if you actually talked about what you don't like and what you do like about what Cain has outlined so far. It might actually give some ground to have a fucking debate on. Rather than the same old "fuck you" style posts...
LOL you do realize that you just criticized me for the same shit you defended him for?
THATS MY POINT!!!!
there isnt much of anything to debate on this plan yet and you have ppl coming up with idiotic shit to discredit it!!!
What I have heard about this plan I dont necissarily like, adding a tax on top of sales tax isnt the best idea. It would be better to exclude things like staples and necissities but still not the best idea.
I do agree with spreading the burden over EVERYONE and not just the top 1%. When you have so few ppl paying so much of the total income tax taken in and you have ppl thinking that those ppl dont pay their "fair" share while you have others who not only dont pay anything in income tax but get MONEY BACK and you think that is perfectly fair...THATS FUCKING DELUSIONAL!!!!
-
Math wise - this plan works and is probably way better than what we have now.
However - without repealing the 16th Amendment - i dont trust the pols not to make this 15 15 15 very quickly.
-
Ron Paul's plan being announced Monday. Cutting $1 trillion. Cutting his pay to $39,000
Ron Paul is coming out with his detailed plan on Monday. Will be specific on what he will cut.
Ron Paul’s detailed agenda for America will be disclosed next week and a senior official with his campaign tells The Brody File that it includes eliminating five governmental departments, cutting one trillion dollars in spending and Dr. Paul would take a presidential salary of just $39, 336, which is the median salary of the American worker (The President’s base salary is normally $400,000).
-
Ron Paul's plan being announced Monday. Cutting $1 trillion. Cutting his pay to $39,000
Ron Paul is coming out with his detailed plan on Monday. Will be specific on what he will cut.
Ron Paul’s detailed agenda for America will be disclosed next week and a senior official with his campaign tells The Brody File that it includes eliminating five governmental departments, cutting one trillion dollars in spending and Dr. Paul would take a presidential salary of just $39, 336, which is the median salary of the American worker (The President’s base salary is normally $400,000).
This should be good. Could really make or break his campaign.
-
Ron Paul's plan being announced Monday. Cutting $1 trillion. Cutting his pay to $39,000
Ron Paul is coming out with his detailed plan on Monday. Will be specific on what he will cut.
Ron Paul’s detailed agenda for America will be disclosed next week and a senior official with his campaign tells The Brody File that it includes eliminating five governmental departments, cutting one trillion dollars in spending and Dr. Paul would take a presidential salary of just $39, 336, which is the median salary of the American worker (The President’s base salary is normally $400,000).
wait wait wait, youre going to wait to hear the merits of this plan?
WHATS FUCKING CHANGED???
LMFAO
-
this so called plan is a gimmick, unfair to the poor and middle classes and beyond stupid
flat tax = tax break for the rich and a tax increase on the poor and middle class
national sales tax also puts a larger tax burden on the poor and middle classes and even worse will drive DOWN consumer spending which harm the economy
-
wait wait wait, youre going to wait to hear the merits of this plan?
WHATS FUCKING CHANGED???
LMFAO
What the hell are you talking about man?
-
this so called plan is a gimmick, unfair to the poor and middle classes and beyond stupid
flat tax = tax break for the rich and a tax increase on the poor and middle class
national sales tax also puts a larger tax burden on the poor and middle classes and even worse will drive DOWN consumer spending which harm the economy
not saying this is the right time for anything like this but sorry bro, 50% not only not paying income tax but getting money back isnt fair and needs to change.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
9 responses to 9 false attacks on the 9-9-9 plan
North Star Writers Group / Herman Cain Author ^ | October 16th, 2011 | Herman Cain
Posted on October 17, 2011 2:08:56 PM EDT by RockyMtnMan
Do you know why candidates for office tend to be reluctant to propose detailed plans? Because they know the plans will be flyspecked and picked apart by just about everyone. Inviting criticism doesn’t help you to get votes.
But fear of criticism prevents you from conceiving solutions to problems. So even if avoidance of criticism helps in propelling you to an election victory, how are you supposed to effectively govern? How are you supposed to fix the problems you told everyone you were going to fix? That’s why I’m happy to see so much criticism of the 9-9-9 plan I’ve proposed. It shows that people are thinking seriously about a substantive idea. When people stop obsessing over “gaffes” and campaign strategy, and start honing in on fixing the country’s economic problems, we are getting somewhere. This is not to say, of course, I’m going to leave poorly founded criticisms of the plan unanswered. Certain objections to the plan are circulating in the usual places, driven by the same kind of thinking that has left us with a stagnant economy, $14 trillion in debt and mounting entitlement obligations. These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:
Claim 1: The 9 percent sales tax, which is one third of the formula, is regressive and hurts the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes now. Response: This claim ignores some important aspects of the plan. One is that we eliminate the 15 percent payroll tax, which allows for no deductions at all – not even for charitable contributions. Some critics have argued that the poor still come out behind because employers pay much of the payroll tax. That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about how compensation works in the business world. An employer decides to accept a certain cost-of-employment for each employee, and the employer’s share of the payroll tax is part of that cost. It comes out of your compensation whether you realize it or not. Also, a flat tax is not – by definition – a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same rate. And it is not an added tax, but a replacement tax, whose total burden is determined by the consumer’s spending decisions. Finally, the best way to help the poor is by spurring economic growth, which the current tax code will never do, and which the 9-9-9 plan is specifically designed to do.
Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them. Even if we repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminated the income tax, as some demand in return for establishing a consumption tax, politicians could raise that rate too. What’s far more important here is the fact that the very simple, flat-rate structure of the 9-9-9 plan, which allows no deductions, loopholes or exemptions (with the exception of charitable contributions for the income tax), is a far more growth-friendly tax structure than the mangled mess of rates, taxes, exemptions and ill-conceived incentives we have today. It virtually eliminates the massive compliance costs of the current tax code, and it restrains the size of government. By taking away the politicians’ gateway drug of loopholes and deductions, we make it much more difficult for them to mess with the tax code. Having said that, any plan could be criticized for what it would look like if someone messed it up. The plan as I’m proposing it is a huge improvement over the status quo.
Claim 3: The plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Response: It does no such thing. It is fair and neutral, taxing everything once and nothing twice. What’s more, we are getting ready to propose empowerment zones for economically struggling areas in which the rates will be even lower. That will allow the poor to benefit even more from the plan than they already would.
Claim 4: The plan should have included a pre-bate to offset the sales tax. Response: The last thing we need is to establish another federal entitlement, which the proposed pre-bate would quickly become. And it’s not necessary. The consumption tax replaces ones already embedded in prices. It’s not the prices that would increase, but the visibility of the taxes being paid. Right now, money is deducted from your paycheck and you never see it, so it doesn’t feel like you paid a tax. But you did. With the 9-9-9 plan, you feel it, and I suspect a good many people who clamor for higher taxes will start to feel differently as a result. But they won’t be paying more than before. They’ll just be more aware of it.
Claim 5: The business tax represents a new tax on labor. Response: Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes this claim because we do not allow businesses to deduct the cost of labor from their taxable revenue. But the claim is bogus for several reasons. First, we are reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 9 percent, so the tradeoff is a much lower rate paid on more of a company’s income. Second, we treat capital and labor the same, both with the corporate tax and with the income tax. That is fair and neutral. What’s more, the current system taxes both capital investment by business and capital gains by individuals. That’s a double tax, and the 9-9-9 plan eliminates it.
Claim 6: The numbers don’t add up. The 9-9-9 tax wouldn’t generate enough revenue. Response: Several groups apparently “ran the numbers” and came to this conclusion, including Bloomberg News and the Center for American Progress. Our report, which they do not appear to have read, demonstrates that it generates the same revenue as the current tax code, and our methodology is visible for anyone to see. Those who are making this claim should release their scoring so their methodology is as visible as ours.
Claim 7: The 9-9-9 plan is a really an 18 percent value-added tax plus a 9 percent income tax. Response: That’s an argument? That some might be able to give it a disagreeable label? What we have done is split the incidence of the tax so it is harder to evade – since you’d have to dodge two taxes, not just one, to save the 18 percent. And by eliminating loopholes we’ve made that virtually impossible to do anyway. I don’t really care what people call it. What matters is how it works.
Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two. More to the point, though, everyone has the same opportunity to work hard, earn capital and put that capital at risk. Whatever I have earned has come from hard work, good decisions (and some bad ones), a willingness to take risks and a constant honing of strategy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing. I realize many are being told there are no opportunities available to them, but that is not true and I wish people – for their own sakes – would stop listening to such doom and gloom and come to understand all the opportunity that truly exists, and learn how to access it.
Claim 9: It won’t pass. Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work. One of the worst instincts of Washington types is to judge an idea not on its substantive merits, but on their perception of its political viability. I do not underestimate the challenge of getting any good idea through Congress, but I have said all along that if you propose a good idea, and the people understand the idea, they will pressure Congress to pass it. So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?