9-9-9 : The APS debate

[AZRedhawk44]

Where do you stand on the 9-9-9 plan?


On the surface I like it...

But I immediately distrust the very idea of authorizing Congress to collect a sales tax.  Just like Bachman said, the federal Income Tax was initially miniscule when it came out.  Now, it's the biggest piece out of people's paychecks if they make more than $50k a year or so.

And I strongly resent that people making under a certain threshold, effectively don't pay federal taxes after their annual refunds.

I also like the idea of putting tens of thousands of CPA's and H&R Block/Jackson-Hewitt folks out of the paper-pushing business and into proper, productive work.

[Jamisjockey]

Pros: 
Everyone should pay taxes.  And that rate should be the exact damn same thing.
The lowering of corporate and income taxes will make goods and services cheaper.  Not immediately, but it will help.

Cons:
The VAT, I do not like.  Not one bit. 
First, it is a direct tax on the poor. At a time when food and other basic goods are at thier most expensive, we're going to add a 9% tax? 
Second, I don't like that it gives congress access to something they've talked about before.  9% today, and in a few years, 15%. Or 20%. 

overall:
I give him credit for stepping up and coming up with a plan.  While the Governors Goodhair beat each other up over illegal alien yard crews, he's standing there saying "listen, America is broke.  Here is my plan."
He's stated before that it will only work with spending cuts, too.  I don't see the pigs in the house and senate giving up thier orgy of spending.  I think it will be D.O.A.

[Waitone]

I don't like the idea of a national sales tax -- not the least bit. 

9-9-9 is a great concept pointed in the wrong direction.

9% spending cuts in the next 30 days.
Another 9% in the following 30 days.
And a third 9% 30 days later.

No discussion of tax increases.  Talk only of spending reduction.

[lupinus]

I think it is a good plan, maybe not what I'd call ideal, but I think it's the best on the table.

Pros-
Simple and transparent, everyone pays the same percentage. Removes a big burden from doing business, investing, etc. Overall taxes are lowered, while the same or more is brought in by making everyone pay in. Also, sales tax ensures everyone pays something, illegals and such included.

Cons-
Like all taxes, it has the danger to creep. I think the sales tax portion should also exempt the sorts of goods most state taxes exempt, such as food medicine and basic clothing.

I think the thing that puts Cain at the biggest disadvantage with the plan is that he is over simplifying it. If he got more detailed such as what he would exempt, where those tax zones would apply, what language would be in the bill preventing increases, etc. he could gain a LOT more support for it.

[Tallpine]

The democrats will take this and turn it into 90-90-90   

[seeker_two]

I prefer the 9-0-9 Plan (sales tax YES, income tax NO)....but 9-9-9 is better than what we got now.

[TommyGunn]

Well, it's a pretty decent plan to transition to "the fair tax."
The tax would be 9%; in the law there's a clause stating the congress would require a 2/3 supermajority to raise the tax.   This may not prevent it absolutly -- but there's nothing preventing taxex from being raised now except that the republicans in the house would block it.
Ultimatly it's WHO WE ELECT.

[Ben]

I'm against the sales tax portion. In some states people would be paying nearly 20% sales tax. We might as well be Europe at that point. If there was a way to limit maximum sales taxes at the state level to something reasonable, I'd be more inclined to buy into a national sales tax.

I'm big on a simplified income tax though, if done fairly -- i.e., the threshold for a free ride would need to be a pretty low income. I'm a firm believer that everyone should have to pay at least something, just to have some skin in the game and know that entitlements don't come free.

[bedlamite]

I wouldn't mind a sales tax instead of an income tax. People would be reminded daily how much the Government takes. But a sales tax and an income tax? No.

[Gowen]

They way I hear it is, eliminating all the hidden taxes on products would cause the retail price of products to decrease.  The savings would be a gain for the consumer.

[CNYCacher]

They way I hear it is, eliminating all the hidden taxes on products would cause the retail price of products to decrease.  The savings would be a gain for the consumer.

That's how I see it.  Sure, you are paying 9% on top of something but if the price dropped 15% because the company making that something is suddenly saving a crap-ton on taxes, it's a win.

[seeker_two]

I'm against the sales tax portion. In some states people would be paying nearly 20% sales tax.

Not if the citizens of that state jumped on their state politi-critters and got their state sales tax cut down.....unless, that is, they want the Feds to be the only gov't collecting taxes and issuing "a fair share" to each state..... 

[Jamisjockey]

They way I hear it is, eliminating all the hidden taxes on products would cause the retail price of products to decrease.  The savings would be a gain for the consumer.

It wouldn't be immediate. 

[makattak]

I'm conflicted.

I don't want any type of consumption tax so long as we have an income tax.

However, worse than our taxes being too high, they are arbitrary.(1)

So, is it my preference? No. However, he's the only candidate with a plan to simplify the tax code. For that, he gets my attention for the effort. (In addition, Art Laffer supports the plan; that's another big plus.)

(1) By that I mean that a media outlet hired three different accountants to do a hypothetical return. They came back with three different results.

So they asked the IRS which one was right. The answer was "any of them could be right."

The IRS can't even say what your exact tax bill is.

[Physics]

In my mind, spending is the problem; taxes are the symptom.  I know I'm somewhat preaching to the choir here, but we need to cut spending so that we can cut taxes.  Do I like Cain's plan?  Not the sales tax, but I deeply respect the cajones required to float a specific plan, and I like the concept of everyone paying the same tax rate.  However, I don't think he gets the problem: real cuts on spending.  I'd like the federal government so small that we don't pay any federal income taxes.

I'm with Ron Paul. 

[RevDisk]

VAT is the worst tax made by humanity thus far.

[Ron]

If you want less of something, tax it.

What we have now may be worse than 9/9/9 but I hate the idea of letting the VAT/consumption tax sneak in under the guise of tax reform.

 

[Perd Hapley]

People would be reminded daily how much the Government takes.

That's a good point that not enough people are talking about. But couldn't the same be accomplished by eliminating withholding and going to a low, flat income tax with fewer exemptions and exceptions?

[just Warren]

There's a couple of things about it that don't get mentioned.

One: it's revenue neutral, screw that. Cut gov by a bunch and make it a 4-4-4 plan and you might get my attention.

Two: What about tariffs? There's a whole area that could be simplified as well. How about making it a straight 3% for anything coming in, with no quotas in effect and then having the other things also be 3% for a 3-3-3-3 plan that spreads out the pain far and wide yet still generates enough revenue for Constitutionally authorized  government expenses.

Three: What about a Georgist style land value tax? If you're going to tax consumption at the Federal level why not property? Make it and everything else 2% for a 2-2-2-2-2 plan and it would cost to more to evade the taxes then it would to just pay them. And it would be near impossible to escape them. Of course given how much government wastes doing any task, collection should be privatized for maximum efficiency.

Convince states and cities to do the same thing, after privatizing everything that should be in the productive sector, and you'll never pay more than 6% (in a city) on anything. In fact if enough stuff is privatized you might be able to have a 1-1-1-1-1 plan. Which would make it a max of 3% on anything of economic value you do. It would be difficult to credibly complain about such a tax structure.

[MicroBalrog]

That's a good point that not enough people are talking about. But couldn't the same be accomplished by eliminating withholding and going to a low, flat income tax with fewer exemptions and exceptions?

1. Need I explain an obvious way in which anybody can avoid paying income tax, especially in a free-market society? Not that I care.

2. Make that "no exemptions". If you left 1,000 exemptions in the tax code (I suspect this is a miniscule number compared to what is happening now) they would multiply again - into 1,001, 1,010, 2,000, 2,000000 exceptions.

[lupinus]

I'm against the sales tax portion. In some states people would be paying nearly 20% sales tax. We might as well be Europe at that point.

Yes, sales taxes would go up. But making up for that is the money never taken from your paycheck in the first place which balances it out, and collects tax only on taxable items.

[roo_ster]

I'm conflicted.

I don't want any type of consumption tax so long as we have an income tax.

However, worse than our taxes being too high, they are arbitrary.(1)

So, is it my preference? No. However, he's the only candidate with a plan to simplify the tax code. For that, he gets my attention for the effort. (In addition, Art Laffer supports the plan; that's another big plus.)

(1) By that I mean that a media outlet hired three different accountants to do a hypothetical return. They came back with three different results.

So they asked the IRS which one was right. The answer was "any of them could be right."

The IRS can't even say what your exact tax bill is.

This is close enough, I'll shamelessly plagiarize leverage it.

Also, a national sales tax != VAT.  Some of the GOP Cain-bashers deliberately conflate the two, hoping to confuz other folk.

[CNYCacher]

However, he's the only candidate makattack takes seriously with a plan to simplify the tax code.

FTFY

[HankB]

I would support a consumption tax - call it a national sales tax, VAT tax, whatever - ONLY if it completely REPLACED the income tax.

Anything that combines a NEW tax with a temporary reduction (and trust me, the reduction WILL be temporary!) in the income tax will not end well.

I don't know why Cain hasn't embraced the FAIR tax; it's not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over what we have now and seems to be very workable.

Yes, sales taxes would go up. But making up for that is the money never taken from your paycheck in the first place which balances it out, and collects tax only on taxable items.

Quote: "But . . . but . . .  whut abouts my welfare check? They doesn't take nuthin' from dat now, and I'se a gunna hafta pay MO fo my beer and butts!"

[makattak]

FTFY

I'm sure Mr. Paul has a plan too. And you're quite right that I don't take him seriously.

I've thought more on this overnight and came to one conclusion: A good plan now is better than a perfect plan next week.

Is 9-9-9 perfect? Heck no. Is it good? I would say, yes, it is a significant improvement and therefore, good.

I will support Mr. Cain's plan. I am not yet to the point of supporting Mr. Cain, but his plan, at least, has my support.