Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Morning Star, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. Morning Star

    Morning Star Well-Known Member

    I was watching the debate last night and I've noticed that the other GOP contenders were knocking down Cain for his 9-9-9 plan. The details can be found on You can find out more on his WEBSITE for a detailed analysis. In short, his plan is basically having...

    1. 9% Income Tax
    2. 9% National Sales Tax
    3. 9% Corporate Income Tax

    According to Cain, this will (as usual political rhetoric) build a robust economy. But with the details and information provided, PolitiFact found that it won't necessarily generate the promise Cain constantly believes. He's one of the three businessmen in the field with a plan, but it does fall short on expectations. Unless there's an early revamp of the tax code, his plan will fall short drastically. So I ask of you all the following...

    1. Do you agree with his proposal? Why or why not?
    2. Do you think his plan will eventually catch on in the near future?
    3. Would you vote for him based on this plan?
     
  2. goodlove

    goodlove New Member

    I agree with him in principle that we should go to a flat rate tax. I think we could take the auditors from teh IRS to audit business and wall street to prevent the fraud that the world from the mortgage derivatives and swaps we suffered from and other frauds such as enron.

    consumption tax is good on paper but how will it hold up in action.

    in total I agree that the tax system needs to be revamped
     
  3. Frederick

    Frederick Well-Known Member

    This tax plan is a bad joke. A 9% tax on the rich and corporations would lead to comically low revenue for the government. On top of that, the imposition of the regressive flat tax, which would also be levied food and clothing, would be draconian. This bullshit plan would fuck the poor even worse than they have it now and effectively destroy the federal government.

    You want a real tax plan? Increase the top marginal rate, add a higher bracket for mega millionaires, get rid of that carried interest bullshit that hedge fund managers use to avoid paying their fair share and close the loopholes that corporations that are based in the U.S. use to avoid paying taxes here. Revenue problem solved.

    People need to get educated about the history of taxation. The way these Republicans carry on, you would think that tax rates are at the highest levels they've ever been, when they're actually at their lowest since income taxes were first levied. A lot of corporations aren't even paying taxes in the U.S. while they sponge off of the infrastructure and government services that the rest of us pay to maintain.

    BTW if you aren't rich, stop advocating for the top 1% to pay lower taxes. Odds are that you're never going to have that much money, and you're only supporting interests that conflict with your own well-being.
     
  4. velkrum

    velkrum Banned

    you couldn't be more wrong. Use facts not theory based on one concept, that concept being regressive tax.

    Look at Washington state. Business is thriving and they are one of the few places that has not been so harshly affected due to deflation. Smaller Tax empowers people and creates jobs.

    Free markets will regulate whether or not people can afford commodities. Why are you so quick to defend the FED ? what has the fed done for you ?
     
  5. Ra

    Ra Well-Known Member



    I'm going to take a wild guess and say that obviously you don't live in Washington state do you? Don't know where you get your info about buisnesses thriving. :confused: Some are holding steady and some are having to close shop. Pretty much the same as else where in the U.S.
     
  6. Ches

    Ches Well-Known Member

    Economics is not one of my strong points. Can someone explain this plan in simple terms? I like Cain for other reasons, but at first blush, I didn't like how this sounded. But I haven't had a chance to research it. How would this affect me personally and how would it affect the nation's economy as a whole? Thanks.
     
  7. velkrum

    velkrum Banned

    If you make $30,000 a year deduct 9% of your annual income.
    You keep $27,300 while $2,700 goes towards taxes.
    That means you keep $2,275 out of a monthly $2,500.

    If you buy a T-Shirt for $19.99 you will only pay $21.79 (9% sales tax)

    If you run a business and your business earns you $100,000, you keep $91,000 while $9,000 goes towards taxes. (could be every 6mo or annually)
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2011
  8. Ches

    Ches Well-Known Member

    Ok, just as I thought. So, no more tax brackets, everyone is taxed a flat rate. What is the lowest tax bracket right now? Sales tax would be higher (PA is only 6%). Is 9% for business owners good or bad?
     
  9. velkrum

    velkrum Banned

    %9 is FUCKING INCREDIBLE for business owners !

    America lost a lot of entrepreneurs to Switzerland because of the 15% tax. At %9 tax not only would America have the lowest business income tax in the world, Businesses owners from all over the globe would KILL to open up new businesses in America.

    Every man woman and child would have a job. There would be so many jobs you would also see an influx of immigrants because there would be such a big demand for workers. Nearly every city in the country would begin to look like manhattan.

    People would also stop working for other people and begin opening their own businesses ! You would see an explosion of people skipping college and coming up with new ways of working for themselves.

    You would see GDP skyrocket and standard of living increase ! The only problem would be an over crowded country but crime would most likely be at an all time low.
     
  10. Ches

    Ches Well-Known Member

    So detractors are upset, why? What's the downside to the plan?


     
  11. velkrum

    velkrum Banned

    Influx of immigration, over saturation of markets, low education rates, Potential for Corruption, ZERO federal aid, ZERO government subsidy's, Minimal Military (no more career soldiers).

    There would be smaller government and less enforcement of regulations...(less people with guns running your life) but when people are earning enough money to live the lives they want there is no need for government assistance and there is no need to commit crimes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2011
  12. The Dark King

    The Dark King Well-Known Member

    Yeah instead a corporatist mindset which only cares about profit btw with guns running our lives.
    The FED definitely isn't perfect but like John Locke said If Men Were Angels We Wouldn't Need Government.
     
  13. goodlove

    goodlove New Member

    LOL. real truth on some points but I dig what you are saying
     

Share This Page